THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 

PRESENTED  BY 

PROF.  CHARLES  A.  KOFOID  AND 
MRS.  PRUDENCE  W.  KOFOID 


COSMICAL  EVOLUTION 

CRITICAL  AND  CONSTRUCTIVE 


BY 
EVAN  McLENNAN 

\\ 


Thus  there  followed  one  another,  five  provisional  theories  of  the  Solar 
System,  before  the  sixth  and  absolutely  true  theory  was  reached.  In 
which  five  provisional  theories,  each  for  a  time  held  as  final,  we  may 
trace  both  the  tendency  men  have  to  leap  from  scanty  data  to  wide  gen- 
eralizations, that  are  either  untrue,  or  but  partially  true;  and  the  neces- 
sity there  is  for  these  transitional  generalizations  as  steps  to  the  final  one. 

To  the  true  reformer  no  institution  is  sacred,  no  belief  above  criticism. 
Everything  shall  conform  itself  to  equity  and  reason;  nothing  shall  be 
saved  by  its  prestige. — HERBERT  SPENCER. 


SECOND    EDITION 


PRINTED  FOR  THE  AUTHOR 
CORVALLIS,  OREGON 


COPYRIGHT,   1916 
BY 

EVAN  MCLENNAN 


1916 

GAZETTE-TIMES  PRESS 
CORVALLIS.  OREGON 


QB 


whatever  outside  scientific  investigation  and  criticism 
this  work  has  received  during  the  past  twenty-five  years, 
the  author  desires  to  express  his  obligation  to  the  OREGON 
AGRICULTURAL  COLLEGE,  Corvallis,  and  to  THE  REED 
INSTITUTE,  Portland,  Oregon.  The  latter,  besides  being  an 
educational  college,  is  also,  so  far  as  it  is  able,  a  means  for 
the  general  propagation  and  diffusion  of  knowledge  among 
men;  which  is  also  the  sole  foundation  and  purpose  of  older 
and  much  stronger  institutions.  The  younger  institution,  how- 
eyer,  does  not  concern  itself  with  the  source  or  class  from 
which  the  propagation  of  knowledge  proceeds,  but  welcomes 
investigation-  and  research  by  amateur  or  professional  alike; 
its  only  object  therein  being  the  ascertainment  and  establish- 
ment of  the  truths  of  Nature,  however  and  wherever  found. 

To  THE  REED  INSTITUTE,  therefore,  in  acknowledgement 
of  its  generous  and  liberal  treatment  in  this  respect,  and  in 
the  hope  of  the  continuance  in  the  future  of  its  helpfulness  and 
eagerness  to  maintain  the  spirit  of  openminded  inquiry  re- 
garding the  value  of  results  obtained  by  all  students  of  Nature, 
in  all  her  fields,  this  work  is  respectfully  and  gratefully  in- 
scribed and  dedicated  by  the  author. 


M358720 


PREFACE 


What  are  we  in  this  so-called  nineteenth  century  doing 
in  our  laboratories  and  our  libraries?  Too  many  of  us  are 
content  to  acquire  simply  what  others  have  observed  and 
discovered,  with  an  eye  directed  mainly  to  medals,  certif- 
icates, diplomas  and  other  honors  recognized  as  the  fruits 
of  "passing."— PROF.  WILLIAM  CKOOKES. 

It  is  true  that,  in  contemplating  the  material  universe, 
they  who  discern  the  causes  and  effects  of  things  must  be 
more  rapturously  entertained  than  those  who  perceive  noth- 
ing but  shape  and  size,  color  and  motion.  Yet  in  the 
mere  outside  of  nature's  works — if  I  may  so  express  myself — 
there  is  a  splendour  and  magnificence  to  which  even  un- 
tutored minds  cannot  attend  without  great  delight. 

—DR.  BEATT1E. 

PLAUSIBLE. — No  but  seriously  I  hate  to  do  a  rude  thing: 
I  speak  well  of  all  mankind. 

MANLY. — I  thought  so;  but  I  know  that  speaking  well 
of  all  mankind  is  the  worst  kind  of  detraction;  for  it  takes 
away  the  reputation  of  the  few  good  men  in  the  world,  by 
making  them  all  alike.  Now  I  speak  ill  of  most  men  be- 
cause they  deserve  it:  I  can  do  a  rude  thing  rather  than  an 
unjust  thing.— WILLIAM  WYCHERLY. 

This  book,  while  really  a  new  edition  of  a  work  entitled 
"Cosmical  Evolution,"  published  twenty-six  years  ago,  may 
yet  be  regarded  as  a  new  book  giving  extensive  extracts  con- 
taining the  principal  facts  of  the  older  work,  together  with 
the  author's  findings  regarding  the  subject  during  the  last 
quarter  of  a  century;  the  latter  constituting  the  greater  part 
of  the  volume.  The  following,  from  the  preface  of  the  work 
referred  to,  still  indicate  the  scope  and  nature  of  the  sub- 
jects discussed: 

"From  what  cause  and  how  did  this  world  of  ours  come 
into  existence?  How  did  it  come  to  circulate  around  the  Sun 
in  its  present  path  and  with  its  present  velocity? 


Vi  PREFACE 

What  are  the  changes  which  have  taken  place 
upon  it,  and  by  how  many  races  of  beings  like  our- 
selves, separated  from  each  other  by  long,  lifeless  periods, 
has  it  been  inhabited  in  the  past?  \Vhat  causes  bodies  to 
fall  towards  its  center?  Why  does  the  magnetic  needle 
point  approximately  to  the  north  upon  the  greater  portion  of 
its  surface?  What  is  the  nature  of  the  aurora  and  the  elec- 
tricity manifested  in  its  atmosphere?  Why  does  its  tem- 
perature, so  far  as  we  know,  increase  at  a  regular  rate  from 
its  surface  towards  its  center,  and  what  is  the  physical  con- 
dition of  its  internal  regions?  What  causes  the  tides  upon 
its  ocean  surface?  How  did  it  happen  that  plants  and  ani- 
mals of  temperate  latitudes  once  flourished  far  within  its 
Polar  Circles,  and  that,  subsequently,  almost  its  entire  sur- 
face was  encrusted  with  a  thick  sheet  of  ice?  What  caused 
the  extremely  favorable  conditions  for  vegetable  growth  de- 
noted by  the  coal  deposits  of  its  Carboniferous  Age?  What 
is  the  significance  of  the  changes  which  are  now  taking 
place  upon  it — the  earthquakes  and  earth-tremors,  the  gey- 
sers, the  volcanic  eruptions,  and  the  displacements  of  the 
vertical  and  of  terrestial  latitudes?  What  changes  are  yet 
to  take  place  upon  it,  and  what  is  eventually  to  become  of  it? 
"What  connection  have  the  phenomena  taking  place  upon 
the  Sun's  surface — the  sunspots  and  the  explosive  erup- 
tions— with  the  phenomena  taking  place  upon  the  Earth's  sur- 
face— magnetic  storms  and  disturbances,  barometric  varia- 
tions, and  precipitation?  What  is  the  nature  and  significance 
of  the  solar  corona  and  the  zodiacal  light?  How  came  the 
Sun,  the  Moon,  the  planets,  and  the  innumerable  stars  into 
their  assigned  paths  or  positions,  and  what  maintains  them 
there?  What  are  the  comets  which,  with  their  mysterious 
trains  sweep  around  the  Sun,  and  the  meteorites  which,  as 
occasional  bearers  of  strange  organic  remains,  fall  from  the 
depths  of  space  upon  our  world;  and  whence  came  they  and 
why?  What  is  the  nature  of  the  magnificent  Saturnian  Ring, 
and  how  is  its  equilibrium  maintained?  And,  finally,  what 
are  the  temporary  stars  which  suddenly  blaze  forth  in  the 


PREFACE  yii 

firmament  and  then  gradually  fade  away,  the  variable  stars 
which  increase  and  decrease  in  luster  in  regular  periods,  and 
the  gauzy  nebular  forms?" 

These  are  some  of  the  subjects  discussed  in  this  work, 
and  surely  they  are  worthy  of  a  small  portion  of  our  time 
and  attention. 

"In  the  midst  of  this  universe  of  seething  movements  is  our 
home.  The  mind,  uplifted  in  '"ie  effort  to  contemplate  them 
and  grasp  their  method,  grows  giddy  and  impotent.  How 
sublime  these  activities!  To  what  a  numerous  and  lofty 
companionship  does*  our  little  planet  belong!  Hard  it  seems 
to  be  imprisoned  here  while  the  realm  of  the  universe  tempts 
us  to  its  exploration.  How  can  a  human  soul  content  itself 
to  roll  and  whirl  through  space  during  its  mortal  days,  and 
eat  and  sleep  and  trifle,  like  rats  in  a  ship  at  sea,  without 
wondering  where  we  are  and  whither  we  are  bound".* 

These  subjects  involve  many,  if  not  indeed  all,  of  the 
fundamental  conceptions  of  physical  science.  They  are  here 
examined  in  the  light  of  current  principles  and  theories,  from 
many  points  of  view.  First,  by  way  of  introduction,  a  brief 
review  is  given  of  our  impressions  of  them,  from  the  ear- 
liest and  most  primitive  down  to  those  of  the  present  day; 
this  review  showing  a  sequence  of  many  different  theories, 
each  for  a  time  held  as  true,  but  subsequently  rejected  as  er- 
roneous and  replaced  by  another.  The  last  of  these,  the 
Newtonian  theory  of  gravitation,  has  been  accepted  as  per- 
fect for  centuries,  and  is  generally  so  accepted  today;  but  af- 
ter a  careful  and  apparently  complete  examination  of  it,  it 
appears  to  be  fallacious,  just  like  its  predecessors.  And, 
finally,  the  same  subjects,  including  about  all  of  the  larger 
phenomena  of  the  Solar  and  Sidereal  Systems,  are  consid- 
ered in  the  light  of  new  principles  and  a  new  theory,  in  one 
consecutive  process  of  cosmical  evolution. 

The  abtruse  nature  and  vast  scope  of  the  subject  make 
it  difficult  to  command  completeness  and  perfect  accuracy 
of  its  discussion,  especially  from  the  new  viewpoint  here 

*Alexander  Winchell,  World-Life,  p.   142. 


Viii  PREFACE 

presented.  It  is  confidently  believed,  however,  that  many 
new  truths  of  the  highest  scientific  importance  are  here 
placed  before  the  reader.  The  confidence  in  this  belief  i? 
largely  enhanced  by  the  unmistakable  signs  of  disintegration 
of  present-day  scientific  conceptions,  and  by  the  apparent 
convergence  of  recent  scientific  opinion  towards  the  views 
advanced  in  this  and  the  former  work  during  the  last  quarter 
of  a  century,  and  even  by  the  actual  adoption  of  these  views, 
in  at  least  one  instance,  by  leading  men  of  science,  though 
(unintentionally,  of  course)  without  any  credit  to  the  au- 
thor, who  had  published  them  ten  years  before.* 

The  highest  scientific  authorities  have  been  consulted, 
and  copious  quotations  on  essential  points  given  from  their 
works.  Involved  processes  of  logic  or  mathematics  have 
been  studiously  avoided,  as  well  as  the  utmost  pains  taken 
to  bring  the  subjects  clearly  within  the  comprehension  of  the 
ordinary  reader  and  make  them  attractive  and  interesting 
to  all  who  have  a  bent  in  their  direction. 

The  author  is  greatly  indebted  to  several  scientific  men 
for  much  valuable  information,  kindly  and  freely  furnished. 
To  Gen.  W.  B.  Hazen  and  Lieut.  A.  W.  Greely,  Chief  Signal 
Officers  U.  S.  A.;  Prof.  S.  P.  Langley,  of  Allegheny  Obser- 
vatory, and  Mr.  G.  W.  Hill,  of  the  Nautical  Almanac  Office, 
the  author  is  especially  under  obligations  for  such  aid  in 
preparing  the  former  work;  and  Prof.  W.  S.  Eichelberger,  of. 
the  U.  S.  Naval  Observatory,  has  furnished  similar  data  for 
the  present  volume.  Prof.  E.  R.  Shepard,  formerly  of  the 
Oregon  Agricultural  College,  has  kindly,  but  very  cursorily, 
looked  over  most  of  the  principal  portions  of  this  work;  and 
while  emphatically  still  retaining  his  belief  in  the  older  views, 
he  has  nevertheless  confessed  his  inability  to  point  out  a 
single  important  defect  in  the  views  herein  advanced  by  the 
author. 

Criticism  is   cordially  invited;    and  the  reviewer's   atten- 

*See  Art.  164 (e). 


PREFACE  IX 

tion   is   especially   directed   to  the   concluding   chapter    (just 
preceding  Appendix  A). 

NOTE. — In  the  winter  of  1914-15,  after  this  work  had  been 
ready  for  the  press,  the  kindly  offices  of  Dr.  W.  J.  Kerr,  Pres- 
ident of  Oregon  Agricultural  College,  and  Dr.  William  T.  Fos- 
ter, President  of  Reed  College,  Portland,  Ore.,  fortunately 
procured  for  it,  in  a  measure,  a  critical  examination  by  the 
heads  of  the  physical  departments  of  four  of  the  principal 
colleges  of  the  Western  United  States.  All  of  the  results  of 
this  examination,  for  which  permission  to  publish  has  been 
obtained,  are  given  in  Appendix  A,  together -with  the  author's 
replies  thereto.  The  eighteen  months'  delay  in  the  publica- 
tion of  the  work  thus  necessarily  entailed  is  amply  compen- 
sated by  the  benefits  of  the  discussion  of  some  of  the  prin- 
ciples involved,  for  the  perusal  of  which  the  interested  reader 
will  scarcely  need  any  special  urging. 

October,  1916. 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION 

ARTICLE.  PAGE. 

1.  The  Riddle  of  the  Universe 1 

2.  Nature  of  Man's  Earliest  Conceptions  of  the  Heavens  1 

3.  Various  Legends  of  Creation    2 

4.  Primitive  Astronomical  Ideas   of  the  Past    3 

5.  Primitive  Astronomical  Ideas  of  the  Present  4 

6.  The  Dawn  of  Astronomical   Science    6 

7.  The  Almagest  or  Ptolemaic  System    6 

8.  The  Copernican  System 7 

9.  The   Vortical   Theory 9 

10.  The  Theory  of  Gravitation    11 

11.  The  Nebular  Hypothesis  13 

12.  Astronomical  Science  Still  in  Its  Infancy    15 

13.  Current  Acceptance  of  Scientific  Dogmas  16 

14.  Present-Day   Doubts    17 

15.  Plan  of  This  Work   18 

PART  I 

Objections  to  the  Theory  of  Gravitation. 
CHAPTER  I. 

The  Law  of  Gravitation. 

16.  Definition  of  the  Law 20 

17.  Application  of  the  Law  21 

18.  Application  to  the  Moon  and  the  Earth   22 

19.  The    Law    of    Gravitation    and    the    Conservation 

of  Energy      23 

20.  The  Attraction  of  a  Sphere  or  Spherical  Shell 25 

21.  Terrestrial  Attraction  27 

22.  Gravity  in  an  Ellipse 28 


xii  CONTENTS 

ARTICLE.  PAGE. 

23.  The  Runaway  Stars    29 

24.  Gravitation  and  Solar  Heat   29 

25.  The  Pressure  of  Sunlight   *. 30 

26.  Gravitative  Strain  Upon  a  Revolving  Planet 31 

CHAPTER  II. 
The  Problem  of  Three  Bodies. 

27.  Data  of  the  Problem  36 

28.  Perturbation  of  the  Moon's  Motion  Owing  to  the 
Sun's  Distance- Variation 36 

29.  Perturbation  of  the  Moon's  Motion  Owing  to  the 
Earth's  Distance- Variation  38 

30.  Perturbation  of  the  Moon's  Motion  Owing  to  Var- 

iation of  its  Velocity  Around  the  Sun  §9 

31.  Perturbation  of  the  Moon's  Motion  Owing  to  Var- 
iation of  its  Velocity  Around  the  Earth 41 

32.  Back-Action  of  the  Earth's  Attraction 41 

33.  Front-Action  of  the  Sun  42 

34.  Contradiction  of  the  Theory  by  the  Facts  43 

35.  Possibility  of  the  Given  Case  44 

36.  Previous  discussions  of  the  Problem   45 

CHAPTER  III. 
The  Problem  of  Two  Bodies. 

37.  The  Law  of  Equal  Areas  in  Equal  Times  48 

38.  Supra-Rational   Mathematics    54 

39.  The  Parallelogram  of  Forces  56 

40.  Contradiction  of  Kepler's  Second  and  Third  Laws.  59 

41.  The  increase  of  Absolute  Velocity 61 

42.  Instability  of  a  Two-Body  System   62 

CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Tides. 

43.  The  Tidal  Theory 63 

44.  The  Tide-Raising  Force  Directly  Opposed  by  Ter- 
restrial Gravity   64 


CONTENTS  xiii 
ARTICLE.                                                                                                                  PAGE 

45.  The  Tides   Not  Raised  Where  the  Alleged   Tide- 

Raising  Force  is  Applied  65 

46.  The   Oceanic   Tides    Obliterated   by   Tides   in   the 

Earth's  Interior   67 

47.  Another  Tidal  Theory 68 

48.  The  Solar  Tide  70 

49.  Inland  Sea  and  Lake  Tides 72 

CHAPTER  V. 
The  Amount  and   Distribution  of  the  Sun's  Heat. 

50.  Temperature  of  the  Sun's  Surface 75 

51.  Unvarying  Quantity  of  Solar  Heat  at  Various  Dis- 

tances from  the  Sun 77 

52.  Amount  of  Solar  Heat  Falling  Upon  Either  Pole  of 

the   Earth   During   its    Summer    Season    Greater 

Than  upon  a  Point  at  the  Equator 78 

53.  The  Sun's  Heat  on  Mars  81 

54.  Direct  Contradiction  of  the  Theory  by  the  Facts. .  82 

CHAPTER   VI. 

Tne  Nebular  Hypothesis. 

55.  Various   Modifications    84 

CHAPTER   VII. 
Nebular  Rotation  and  Translation. 

56.  The  Primal  State  of  Matter  87 

57.  Atomic  Attraction  and  Repulsion 87 

58.  Cooling  and  Precipitation  of  the  Primordial  Vapor  88 

59.  Rotation  by  Precipitation  of  Irregular  Flocculi  ...  88 

60.  Rotation  by  Nebular  Collisions    91 

(a)  Density  of  the  Primordial  Vapor 91 

(b)  Conditions  of  Nebular  Condensation   93 

61.  Rotation  by  the  Attraction  of  Distant  Masses  ....  94 

62.  Discordance  of  the  Theory  with  the  Facts   95 


xiv  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
Projection   of  Planet-Rings. 

ARTICLE.  PAGE 

63.  Modification  of  the  Radial  and  Tangential  Forces 

by  Contraction  97 

64.  The  Generation  of  a  Repulsive  Force,  or  Heat,  by 

Contraction    99 

65.  Conflicting  Theories  of  Ring-Projection 101 

66.  Discordance  of  the  Theory  with  the  Facts 103 

CHAfTER    IX. 
The  Idea  of  Force. 

67.  Force  and  Gravity    105 

68.  Summary  of  Part  I  112 


PART  II 

The  Connective  Theory. 

CHAPTER   I. 
Premises  and  Principles. 

69.  Molecular  Bonds 116 

70.  Molecular  Motion 116 

71.  Planetary  Bonds  118 

72.  Designation  and  Essential  Principles  of  the  New 

Theory    119 

CHAPTER    II. 
Evolution  of  the  Solar  System. 

73.  The  Original  Solar  Spheroid   120 

74.  Surface  Contraction  and  Development 121 

75.  Surface  Rigidity  and  Ring-Formation    123 

76.  Ring-Separation    125 

77.  Disruption  of  the  Ring  Into  the  Planetary  Form . .  126 

78.  Corroborative  Evidences   

(a)  Of  Initial  Solidification  at  the  Surface 126 

(b)  of  Ultimate  Crust  Rigidity   .  128 


CONTENTS  xv 

ARTICLE.  PAGE 

(c)  Of  the  Equatorial  Crust  Expansion 129 

(d)  Of  the  Connective  Bond  132 

79.  Comparison  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Ideas 133 

80.  Results  of  the  Ring-Disruption: 

(a)  Loss  of  Acquired  Development   134 

(b)  Axial  Rotation  of  the  Planet 134 

(c)  Recession  of  the  Planet  135 

(d)  Cause  of  the  Different  Absolute  Velocities 

of  the  Planet's  Orbital  Motion  and  of  the 

Rotation  of  the  Spheroid   135 

(e)  Increased  Axial  Rotation  of  the  Sun 137 

(f )  Origin  of  Comets  and  Meteorites  137 

81.  Genesis  of  a  Second  Planet  "138 

82.  Genesis  of  a  Secondary  Connexion   138 

83.  Mutual  Planetary  Accelerations  and  Retardations  139 

84.  Systemic  Complexity    139 

CHAPTER    III. 
The  Evolution  of  the  Sidereal  System. 

85.  The  Original  Sidereal  Spheroid 142 

86.  The  Sidereal  System  and  What  It  Includes 143 

87.  Arrangement  of  the  Sidereal  System  144 

88.  Probable  Number  of  the  Heavenly  Bodies  and  of 

Their  Successive  Generations    145 

CHAPTER    IV. 
The  Universe. 

89.  Other  Sidereal  Systems   148 

90.  The  Origin  of  Motion  149 

CHAPTER  V. 
Cosmical  Gravitation. 

91.  The  Ball-and-String  Hypothesis    152 

92.  The  Factors  of  Cosmical  Gravitation: 

(a)  Rotational  Velocity  of  the  Primary  Body  . .  155 

(b)  The  Structural  Development  of  the  Connex- 

ions   155 


xvi  CONTENTS 

/ 

ARTICLE.  PAGE 

(c)     The  Density  of  the  Connective  Atmosphere 

Upon  the  Surface  of  the  Primary  Body  . .  159 

93.  Difference  Between  the  Actions  of  Gravitation  in 

the  Two   Theories    161 

94.  Action  of  the  Secondary  Connexions   163 

95.  Accurate  Prediction  of  Astronomical  Events  164 

96.  Ethereal  Atmospheres 165 

97.  Terrestrial   Gravitation    166 

CHAPTER   VI. 

The  Cosmical  Distribution  of  Light  and  Heat. 

98.  The  Connective  Theory  of  Heat  Distribution 168 

99.  Comparisons  of  the  Two  Theories  170 

100.  Heat  Transmission  by  the  Secondary  Connexions  .  172 

101.  Connective  Theory  of  Light  Distribution 172 

102.  Horizontal  Enlargement  of  Visual  Objects    174 

103.  Question  Raised  by  the  New  Theory  175 

104.  Dark  Transits  of  Jupiter's  Satellites 175 

105.  Sunlight  and  Earthlight  on  the  Moon 178 

106.  The  Moon's  Sunlight  on  the  Earth   181 

107.  The  Aberration  of  Light  181 

CHAPTER  VII. 
Anomalies  of  the  Solar  System. 

108.  The  Saturnian  Ring   183 

109.  Comets    190 

110.  Meteorites   •     193 

111.  Discrepancies  of  the  Planetary  Masses  and  Motions  197 

112.  The  Minor  Planets 199 

113.  Comets  from  Satellite  Rings  200 

CHAPTER   VIM. 
Interplanetary  Connexions  and  Weather. 

114.  Classification  of  Connexions    201 

115.  Factors  of  the  Planetary  Connexion-Variations  . .  .  205 

116.  Amount  of  the  Planetary  Factors  207 

117.  Monthly  Variations  of  the  Planetary  Factors   ....  208 


CONTENTS  xv  ii 

ARTICLE.  PAGE 

118.  Deductions  from  These  Variations    211 

119.  Monthly  and  Yearly  Variations  of  the  Planetary 

Factor  for  the  Period,  1840-1923   212 

120.  Connection  of  the  Periods  of  Variation  of  the  Plan- 

etary Factor  with  the  Sunspot  Periods 216 

121.  Coincidence  of  the  Periods  of  Variation  of  the  Plan- 

etary Factor   with   the   Periods   of  Atmospheric 
Precipitation     218 

122.  Relation  of  the  Periods  of  Variation  of  the  Plan- 

etary   Factor    to    the    Periods    of      Atmospheric 
Pressure     220 

123.  Coincidence   of   the    Periods    of   Variation    of   the 

Planetary    Factor    with    the    Periods    of    Atmos- 
pheric Electricity   221 

124.  The  Wet  and  the  Dry  Seasons  of  the  Year 222 

125.  Lagging  of  the  Actual  Weather  223 

126.  The  Solar  Factor  of  the  Connective  Variation 224 

127.  The  Lunar  Factor  of  the  Connective  Variation 226 

128.  The  Sidereal  Factor  of  the  Connective  Variation ..  227 

129.  Connection  of  the  Sidereal  Factor  and  the  Wet  and 

Dry  Seasons   229 

130.  Coincidence  of  the  Actually  Wet  and  Dry  Periods 

of  Years  with  the  Indicated  Wet  and  Dry  Periods     230 

131.  Relative  Amounts  and  Effects  of  the  Several  Fac- 

tors      231 

132.  Incompleteness  of  Our  Meteorological  Data 232 

133.  Application  and  Value  of  These  Weather  Indications  233 

134.  A  Probable  Basis  for  the  Flood  Legend 234 

135.  Connection  of  the  Orbital  Period  of  Jupiter  with 

the  Indicated  Wet  and  Dry  Periods  of  Years,  and 
with  the  Sunspot  Periods  237 

CHAPTER    IX. 

Interplanetary   Connexions   and    Sunspots,   the 
Zodiacal  Light,  and  the  Solar  Corona. 

136.  The  Maxima  and  Minima  of  Sunspots  and  Their 

Causes    240 


xviii  CONTENTS 

ARTICLE.  PAGE 

137.  The  Zodiacal  Light  and  its   Connection  with  the 

Sunspot   Periods 242 

138.  Explanation  of  Anomalous  Sunspot  Periods 247 

139.  Existence  of  Invisible  Heavenly  Bodies 249 

140.  Sidereal  Connexions  and  Sunspots 251 

141.  Connective  Variation  Upon  the  Earth  by  the  Sun's 

Primary  System 252 

142.  The  Solar  Corona 253 

143.  Relative  Visibility  of  the  Various  Solar  Connexions 

and  Their  Real  Directions  as  Viewed  in  the  Rays 

of  the  Corona 256 

144.  Summary    of   Results    from    Planetary    Connexion 

Variations 258 

145.  Possible  Objections  to  the  New  Theory  261 

CHAPTER  X. 
General    Meteorological    Phenomena. 

146.  Atmospheric  Extension    265 

147.  Aerial  Tides  and  Barometric  Pressure 266 

148.  Cloud   Zones    269 

149.  Sky-Glows    270 

CHAPTER   XI. 
The  Ocean  Tides. 

150.  Comparison  of  the  Two  Theories  - 274 

151.  The  Greater  Tidal  Wave  Due  to  the  Sun  and  the 

Lesser  to  the  Moon 276 

152.  Possible   Objections    277 

153.  Corroborative. Evidence  from  Inland  Sea  Tides  ...  280 

154.  Discordance  of  Present  Tidal  Theories  281 

CHAPTER   XII. 
Terrestrial  Electricity  and  Magnetism. 

155.  The  Idea  of  an  Immaterial  Substance 283 

156.  Differentiation  of  the  Earth's  Connexions 284 

157.  Relation  of  the  Magnetic  Poles  to  the  Planes  of  the 

Earth's   Motions    .  286 


CONTENTS  xix 
ARTICLE.                                                                                                                  PAGE 

158.  The  Earth  a  Magnet 288 

159.  Irregular  Courses  of  the  Terrestrial  Magnetic  Lines  290 

160.  Height  of  the  Aurora  291 

161.  Diurnal  Variation  of  the  Magnetic  Needle 293 

162.  Annual  Variation  of  the  Magnetic  Needle 295 

163.  The  Irregular  Variations  of  the  Magnetic  Needle.  296 

164.  The  Secular  Variation  of  the  Magnetic  Needle: 

(a)  The  Earliest  Observations 298 

(b)  Explanation  of  the  Observations  at  London 

and   Paris    298 

(c)  The  Southeastern  Direction  of  the  Lines  of 

No   Declination 300 

(d)  Explanation  of  the  Observations  at  Boston.  300 
'  (e)     Explanation  of  the  Secular  Variation 302 

(f)     Period  of  the  Secular  Variation 304 

165.  Corroborative    Evidences 305 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

Geological  Climatic  Changes. 

166.  Geological    Periods    313 

167.  The  Age  of  Ice 314 

168.  The  Causes  of  the  Climatic  Changes 315 

169.  Supposed  Subdivisions  of  the  Ice  Age 317 

CHAPTER   XIV. 
Cosmical  Evolution  in  the  Future. 

170.  Significance  of  the   Sunspots 321 

171.  The  Equatorial  Movements  of  the  Sunspots 322 

172.  The  Greater  Angular  Velocity  of  Sunspots  at  the 

Equator    324 

173.  Present  Crust-Development  Upon  the  Earth 326 

174.  Variation  of  Terrestrial  Latitudes 328 

175.  Ring-Projection   of   the   Earth-Crust 331 

176.  The  Primary  Connexion  of  the  Earth-Crust 332 

177.  Gravitation  Upon  the  Expanded  Earth-Crust 333 

178.  Inner  Fringe  of  the  Earth-Ring 334 


xx  CONTENTS 

ARTICLE.  PAGE 

179.  The  Higher  Forms  of  Life  as  Affected  by  These 

Changes    334 

180.  Disruption  of  the  Earth-Ring. ., 336 

181.  Pre-Lunar  and  Other  Races  of  Mankind 337 

182.  Continued  Evolution  and  the  Limit  at  Which  the 

Process  of  Subdivision  Would  Cease 339 

183.  Glimpse    of    the    Successive    Stages    of    Cosmical 

Evolution     341 

184.  Expansion  of  Evolving  Systems 341 

185.  Eventual    Interference    of   Evolving   Systems    and 

the  Results    342 

186.  Effects   of  the  Irregular   Motions   of  Comets   and 

Meteorites     343 

CHAPTER  XV. 
The  Nebulae. 

187.  The   Regular    Nebulae 345 

188.  The  Irregular  Nebulae 347 

189.  Observed  Changes  in  Nebular  Forms 349 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
Temporary  and  Variable  Stars. 

190.  Temporary  Stars   351 

191.  Double,  Triple,  and  Multiple,  Stars 354 

192.  Variable  Stars  of  Short  Period 354 

193.  Secular  Variation  of  Periodic  Stars 356 

194.  Variable  Stars  of  Long  Period 357 

CHAPTER   XVII. 
Ultimate  Conceptions  of  Mass  and  Velocity. 

195.  Nature  of  the  Ultimate  Subdivisions  of  Matter...     360 

196.  The  Cosmic   Chain  of  Causation — Kepler's   Third 

Law    364 

197.  The  Theory  of  Gravity  and  Atomic  Velocities ...  370 

198.  Weight  or  Mass,  the  Measure  of  Energy 371 

199.  Results  of  a  Grand  Cycle  of  Cosmical  Evolution..  372 


CONTENTS  xxi 
ARTICLE.                                                                                                                 PAGE 

200.  The   Constitution    of   Matter 374 

201.  Connective  Resistance  to  the  Motions  of  the  Heav- 

enly   Bodies    379 

202.  Retrospect    381 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 
Conclusion. 

203.  A  Final  Inference   386 

APPENDIX  A. 

204.  Introductory  Remarks    391 

205-212.     Criticism  by  Dr.  A 393 

213-220.     Reply  to  Dr.  A's  Criticism 399 

221-229.     Criticism  by  Dr.   B 407 

230-239.     Reply  to  Dr.  B's  Criticism 413 

240.  Letter  of  Transmittal  of  Dr.  C's  Criticism 421 

241.  Reply  to  Dr.  C's  Letter  of  Transmittal 422 

242-272.     Reply  to  Dr.  C's  Criticism 424 

APPENDIX  B. 

Extracts  from  Press  Notices  of  First  Edition 461 

Index 467-490 


COSMICAL  EVOLUTION 


INTRODUCTION 

New  truths  begin  as  heresies  and  end  as  superstitions. — 
Nature,  85,  447. 

In  this  connection  we  may  well  remember  the  words  of 
Liebig:  "All  our  views  have  been  developed  from  errors." 
From  the  flashing  embers  of  fallacy  springs  the  Phoenix  of 
Truth.— A.  U.  N.,  Nature,  90,  103. 

If  it  happens  to  any  of  us  as  to 
A  man  who  looks  at  glass, 

On  it  may  stay  his  eye, 
Or,  if  he  pleases,  through  it  pass, 

And  then  the  heavens   espy; 

are  not  those  heavens  which  are  beyond  the  immediate  ob- 
jects of  our  observation  colored  by  our  prejudices,  prepos- 
sessions, emotions,  or  imagination,  as  often  as  they  are  de- 
fined by  any  profound  insight  into  the  depths  of  Nature's 
laws?— PROF.  W.  H.  FLOWER. 

1.  The  Riddle  of  the   Universe. — The  great,  silent  heaven 
in  its  ceaseless  round  of  Sun,   Moon,  and  stars  must  early 
have  engaged  man's  profoundest  attention.     When  his  mind 
emerged  out  of  the  primordial  darkness,  and  the  barbarian 
struggle  for  existence  had  lulled;  when  his  daily  wants  were 
supplied  and  he  began  to  have  leisure  from  the  pitiless  toils 
of   capturing    prey,    or    destroying   his    enemies — the    myster- 
ious, all-surrounding  expanse,   and  the  restless  objects  with 
which  it  was  peopled,  could  not  but  excite  his  attention  and 
wonder.     And  probably  the  earliest  flights  of  his  fancy  and 
exercise  of  his  reason  were  directed  to  solve  the  grand  rid- 
dle of  his  being  and  his  environment. 

2.  Nature  of  Man's  Earliest  Conceptions  of  the  Heavens^ 
— The  earliest  conceptions  of  man,  as  handed  down  to  us  in 
the  legends  of  antiquity,  may  seem  to  us  crude  and  childish; 
but  nevertheless   they  have  been   of  no  small  value.     They 


2  INTRODUCTION  [3 

were  the  first  stepping-stones  to  the  temple  of  knowledge, 
and  without  them,  or  others  equally  as  crude,  the  grander 
conceptions  of  Kant  and  Laplace  could  never  have  existed. 
The  ideas  of  the  origin  and  mechanism  of  the  universe  which 
these  legends  convey  are  extremely  various;  for  every  iso- 
lated race  and  tribe  had  a  legend  of  its  own.  Each  bears 
the  imprint  of  the  peculiar  conditions  of  its  native  locality; 
and  each  attests  that  man's  first  attitude  to  the  forces  of 
Nature  was  that  of  wonder,  mingled  with  fear.  His  sole 
standard  of  things  and  actions  was  himself  and  his  life. 
Everything  that  moved  he  conceived  to  be  animated,  and  the 
movement  directed  by  a  personal  will  for  some  personal  end. 
There  was  a  ceaseless  battle  between  the  darkness  and  the 
light.  In  the  raging  tempest,  when  light  and  darkness  al- 
ternately prevailed,  the  heroes  of  the  spirit-land  waged  the 
war  of  their  still  unsettled  blood-feuds.  The  forked  light- 
ning serpent  was  the  foe  of  the  thunder-bird.  To  the  Aryans, 
a  pastoral  people,  the  Sun  was  the  bull  of  majesty;  the  white 
clouds  driven  by  the  children  of  the  morning  to  their  pas- 
tures in  the  blue  fields  of  the  sky,  were  cows  from  whose 
swelling  udders  dropped  the  milk  of  heaven — the  rain.  In 
the  dark  clouds  dwelt  the  mountain  robber  Vritra,  the  thief- 
dragon,  who  lured  away  the  herds,  until  Indra,  the  Sun-god, 
smote  him  with  his  shafts  and  set  free  the  imprisoned  cows. 
In  Latin  guise,  Indra  and  Vritra  became  Hercules  and  Cacus; 
in  Greek  myth,  Apollo  and  Python;  and  in  the  Scandinavian 
legend,  the  grim  and  fearful  ogres,  sailing  swiftly  in  their 
cloud-ships,  and  Odin  and  his  phanton  crew.  The  rainbow 
was  a  demon  coming  down  to  drink  when  the  rain  fell;  or 
the  Heaven-ladder  or  bridge  along  which  the  souls  of  the 
blest  are  led  by  angels  into  Paradise.  The  tides  were  the 
beatings  of  the  ocean's  heart.  Volcanoes  were  the  dwelling 
places  of  angry  demons.  And  there  were  spirits  of  the 
mountains,  of  the  woods,  of  the  winds,  of  the  waterfalls. 

3.  Various  Legends  of  Creation. — The  more  general  con- 
ceptions were  of  a  similar  character.  In  the  Babylonian 
legend,  handed  down  by  Berosus,  the  goddess  of  Nature, 


4]  INTRODUCTION  3 

mother  of  all,  is  cut  in  twain  by  Belus,  chief  of  the  gods,  one- 
half  becoming  the  sky  and  the  other  the  Earth.  Belus,  un- 
able to  bear  the  light  which  he  thus  created,  cut  off  his  own 
head;  and  from  his  blood  mingled  with  the  dust  of  the 
Earth  arose  the  race  of  men. 

In  the  Hindu  legend,  from  the  laws  of  Manu,  Brahma  dis- 
pelled the  original  darkness  and  gloom  and  created  the 
waters.  In  the  waters  he  placed  a  seed.  The  seed  pro- 
duced a  golden  egg  of  a  thousand  brilliant  beams;  and  in 
this  egg  Brahma  gave  birth  to  himself.  He  split  the  egg 
in  halves,  one  becoming  heaven  and  the  other  Earth.  He 
then  created  gods  and  wise  men,  who  in  turn  created  de- 
mons, animals,  clouds,  mountains  and  rivers. 

The  Greek  legend  of  the  Theogony  is  that  in  the  begin- 
ning was  Chaos.  From  Chaos  came  Gaia,  the  Earth,  and 
Tartarus,  dreadful  and  dark  below.  Then  appeared  beauti- 
ful Eros.  The  Earth  gave  birth  to  Uranus,  the  starry  heaven, 
and  to  the  mountains  and  the  sea.  Then  Gaia  and  Uranus 
married,  and  from  them  sprang  demigods  and  men. 

The  Scandinavians  conceived  a  yawning  gulf  south  of 
which  was  a  region  of  flame,  and  to  the  north  an  abode  ice- 
cold  and  dark.  Torrents  of  venom  flowed  from  the  north 
into  the  void,  filling  it  with  ice,  but  the  flames  of  the  south 
melted  it  and  formed  water.  Out  of  the  water  arose  Ymir 
and  his  wicked  family  of  frost-giants.  Ymir  was  slain  by 
Odin,  Vili,  and  Ve,  and  out  of  his  flesh  they  formed  the 
earth,  from  his  blood  the  seas  and  waters,  from  his  bones 
the  mountains,  from  his  hair  the  trees,  from  his  skull  the 
heavens,  from  his  brains  the  floating  clouds,  and  from  his 
eyebrows  a  wall  around  the  Earth  to  guard  them  from  the 
giant  sons  of  Ymir, 

4.  Primitive  Astronomical  Ideas  of  the  Past. — Descend- 
ing from  the  universe  as  a  whole,  let  us  glance  at  man's  ear- 
liest interpretations  of  its  component  parts.  The  Hindu  con- 
ceived the  Earth  to  be  supported  by  animals  standing  one 
upon  another,  four  elephants  being  the  lowermost,  their  legs 
reaching  all  the  way  down.  The  over-arching  sky  was  firm 


4  INTRODUCTION  [5 

and  solid  like  a  hammered  plate  and  rested  upon  the  borders 
of  the  flat  Earth.  It  had  windows  in  it  to  let  the  rain  through 
and  gates  through  which  angels  descended,  or  through  which 
prophets  saw  into  the  mysteries  of  the  beyond,  and  outside 
of  which  lived  other  people.*  The  Sun,  Moon  and  stars  were 
father,  mother  and  children,  or  heroes  translated  without 
seeing  death.  Their  movements  are  prompted  by  love,  jeal- 
ousy, or  revenge;  sometimes  borne  across  the  heavens  on  the 
backs  of  ancestors,  swimming  again  to  the  east  through  the 
ocean,  or  transported  across  by  fishes  waiting  to  receive  them. 
The  stars  were  men  who  climbed  up  into  the  trees,  and  were 
left  in  the  branches  by  the  trunks  being  cut  away.  The 
Milky  Way  was  the  place  where  the  two  halves  of  the  sky 
were  joined  together.  It  was  also,  like  the  rainbow,  the 
ladder  or  bridge  whereby  the  departed  pass  from  Earth  to 
Heaven;  the  Red  Man's  road  of  the  dead  to  the  Sun;  the 
Roman  p?.th  of,  or  to,  the  gods.  The  Moon  was  chased  by 
monster  dogs  or  wolves  that  bit  and  Avounded  her  until  her 
blood  hid  her  from  the  view;  and,  to  render  her  assistance 
a  fearful  noise  was  made  to  frighten  the  monsters  away. 
Or  she  was  continually  hacked  and  maimed  by  the  Sun  for 
loving  the  morning  star.  Eclipses  were  caused  by  great 
dragons  trying  to  devour  the  Sun  and  Moon.  The  Chinese 
and  the  natives  of  India  beat  brass  kettles,  and  the  Peru- 
vians beat  their  dogs,  to  make  the  monsters  give  up  their 
prey.  Meteors  were  the  souls  of  the  departed  taking  their 
flight  from  Earth.  And  the  Northern  Lights  were  the 
shades  of  the  departed  in  spirit  dance,  the  brighter  the 
flashes  of  the  aurora,  the  greater  the  merriment. 

5.  Primitive  Astronomical  Ideas  of  the  Present.— This 
is  the  childhood  of  the  intellect!;  and  it  is  by  no  means  con- 
fined to  any  single  age.  Indeed  very  gross  conceptions  of 
the  heavens  are  entertained  by  our  own  contemporaries.  The 

*The    Polynesian    teim    for    a    stranger    is    ' 'papalangi' ',    or    heaven- 
burster. 

tPor  these  legends*  more  in  detail  and  many  others,  the  reader  may 
consult  Edward  Clodd's  Childhood  of  the  World,  Childhood  of  Religions, 
Birth  and  Growth  of  Myth,  and  Fritz  Sclmltze's  Fetichism;  wherein 
many  other  authorities  are  cited. 


5]  INTRODUCTION  5 

Namaquas,  a  branch  of  the  Hottentots,  regard  the  Sun  as 
a  lump  of  clear  fat,  which  seamen  attract  to  themselves 
by  enchantment  during  the  night  and  spurn  in  the  morning 
because  they  have  no  further  use  for  it.  The  Moon  is  a 
man  riding  an  ass,  and  wanes  because  he  puts  his  hand  up 
to  his  head  when  he  has  the  headache.  According  to  the 
Patagonians,  two  men  quarreled  over  the  parentage  of  a 
child,  as  a  result  of  which  it  was  cut  in  two,  one  man  taking 
the  upper  half  and  immediately  flinging  it  into  the  sky,  thus 
forming  the  Sun.  The  other  sullenly  let  his  lie  on  the 
ground;  but  seeing  the  glory  of  his  rival's  share,  he  waited 
till  the  Sun  went  down  and  then  flung  his  part  in  the  sky 
also,  thus  forming  the  Moon,  whose  paleness  is  owing  to 
the  blood  having  oozei  out  as  it  lay  on  the  Earth. 

Nor  are  the  savages  entirely  alone,  perhaps,  in  the  an- 
thropomorphism of  astronomical  conceptions.*  While  a  great 
many  of  us  today  have  outgrown  such  legends  as  that 
of  the  Man  in  the  Moon,  the  influence  of  the  lunar  phases 
upon  animals,  plants  and  weather,  the  baneful  or  beneficial 
effects  of  being  born  under  a  certain  star  or  planet,  or  of 
an  event  happening  in  a  certain  sign  of  the  zodiac,  etc.,  yet, 
to  quote  the  words  of  Prof.  Flower  at  the  third  Newcastle 
meeting  of  the  British  Association,  "It  is  impossible  to  be 
blind  to  the  fact  that  we  who  are  engaged  with  the  investi- 
gation of  those  subjects  which  are  commonly  accepted  as 
belonging  to  the  domains  of  physical  science  are  unfortun- 
ately not  always,  by  virtue  of  being  so  occupied,  possessed  of 
that  most  precious  of  gifts,  'a  right  judgment  in  all  things. >  " 
And  again,  "are  not  those  heavens  which  are  beyond  the 
immediate  objects  of  our  observation  colored  by  our  preju- 
dices, prepossessions,  emotions,  or  imagination  as  often  as 
they  are  defined  by  Nature's  laws?" 

*• 'Looked  at  from  this  point  of  view  we  can  not  refuse  to  regard 
them'1  (the  '-willow-leaves'  of  the  Sun's  surface)  ''as  organisms  of1 
seme  amazing  kind;  and  thou.eh  it  would  be  too  daring  to  speak  of  such 
organization  as  partaking  of  the  nature  of  life,  yet  we  know  that  vital 
action  is  competent  to  develop  at  cnce,  heat,  light  and  electricity." — 
SIR  JOHN  HERSCHEIj,  quoted  by  L'rof.  bangley  in  the  Century  Mag- 
azine, Vol.  VI,  717.  The  "willow-leaves"  are  about  1000  miles  long 
by  abcnt  200  miles  broad. 


6  INTRODUCTION  [7 

6.  The    Dawn    of    Astronomical    Science. — Although    the 
oldest  of  be   sciences,   astronomy  has   been   pretty  much  a 
concatenation   of   illusions   quite*  similar   to   these   from   the 
earliest  observations  of  the  Chaldean  priests  down  to  the  time 
of   Copernicus,   or   the   beginning   of   the   sixteenth    century. 
This  especially  applies,  however,  to  physical  astronomy,  with 
which  this  volume  throughout  will  be  chiefly  concerned. 

In  the  earliest  times  the  Earth  was  regarded  as  fixed,  and 
the  heavens  as  revolving  around  it  every  twenty-four  hours. 
Pythagoras  and  his  disciples  (about  500  B.  C.)  are  said  to 
have  conceived  the  true  heliocentric  theory  of  the  planetary 
world.  But  if  this  docrine  was  taught  at  that  time,  it  was 
soon  forgotten  or  ignored.  Great  geometrical  and  mathe- 
matical discoveries  in  astronomy  were  made  by  Hipparchus 
of  Bithnia  (about  160-125  B.  C.)  and  by  Ptolemy  of  Alexan- 
dria (about  139  A.  D.) ;  and  the  geocentric  theory  of  Thales 
(accepted  also  by  all  ancient  philosophers  of  eminence,  in- 
cluding Aristotle  and  Plato)  was  invested  with  these  dis- 
coveries and  built  by  Ptolemy  into  the  theory  known 
as  the  Ptolemaic  System,  or  Almagest  of  the  Arabians. 

7.  Tihe  Almagest,  or  Ptolemaic  System. — A  glance  at  this 
venerable    and    at    one    time    universally    approved    thought- 
structure  may  be  instructive.     The  belief  that  the  Earth  was 
the   center   of   the   universe    Ptolemy    supported    by   the    ob- 
served   relations    of    the    elements.     Thus    earth,    the    most 
stable  of  the  elements,  held  the  lowest  place  and  supported 
water,   the   second  in   order.     Above   water  was   placed  air, 
then  ether;   the  latter  being  supposed  to  extend  indefinitely 
above  all.     In  or  above  the  ether  were  successive,   concen- 
tric zones  or  heavens,  each  containing  an  immense  crystal- 
line shell  or  sphere  to  which  was  attached  a  heavenly  body, 
and  which  revolved  around  the  Earth  carrying  the  body  with 
it.      The  smallest  sphere  or  crystalline  surrounded  the  Earth 
and  its  elements,  and  carried  he  Moon.     The  next  in  their 
order  from  the  Earth  carried  Mercury,  Venus,  the  Sun,  Mars, 
Jupiter,  Saturn  and  the  fixed  stars;   eight  in  all.     Later  as- 
tronomers added  a  ninth,  the  motion  of  which  caused  the 


8]  INTRODUCTION  7 

precession  of  the  equinoxes,  and  a  tenth,  or  primum  mobile, 
revolving  from  east  to  west  in  twenty-four  hours,  and  im- 
parting motion  to  all  the  others.  As  geometrical  observations 
increased  in  accuracy,  it  was  found  that  the  motions  of  the 
heavenly  bodies  were  apparently  not  uniform.  Sometimes 
a  planet  moved  slowly  and  at  other  times  comparatively  fast. 
This  was  explained  by  supposing  that  the  Earth  was  not 
at  the  center  of  the  sphere  of  that  planet  but  more  to  one 
side,  and  that  the  planet,  when  carried  past  that  side,  would 
move  more  rapidly  owing  to  its  nearness,  and,  when  on  the 
other  side,  more  slowly  owing  to  its  distance.  The  path 
thus  described  by  the  planet  with  respect  to  the  Earth  was 
called  an  eccentric.  At  other  times  a  planet  seemed  to  stand 
still,  move  backwards,  and  then  rapidly  forwards.  This  was 
really  owing  to  the  different  positions  of  the  planet  and  the 
Earth,  and  their  different  velocities,  around  the  Sun.  But 
the  Ptolemaic  astronomers  attributed  it  to  a  movement  of  the 
planet,  not  directly  with  the  crystalline,  but  in  a  smaller 
secondary  orbit,  the  center  of  which  was  a  fixed  point  in 
the  crystalline;  so  that,  when  the  planet  was  in  t.ne  outside 
half  of  the  secondary  orbit,  it  moved  rapidly  forwards,  and 
when  in  the  inside  half,  it  moved  backwards.  The  path 
of  the  planet  in  this  secondary  orbit  was  called  an  epicycle. 

This  theory  of  eccentrics  and  epicycles,  upon  still  further 
investigation,  was  seen  to  be  still  further  defective,  until  fin- 
ally it  was  found  necessary  to  pile  epicycle  upon  epicycle, 
and  patch  explanation  upon  explanation  so  much  that  Al- 
fonso X,  of  Castile,  to  whom  it  was  being  taught,  was  led 
to  exclaim  that  "if  the  Deity  were  now  to  reconstruct  the 
world,  he  (Alfonso)  could  give  him  a  few  useful  hints."  Yet 
this  theory  commanded  the  approval  of  the  best  intellects  of 
the  world  for  about  two  thousand  years,  and  was  replaced 
only  in  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenh  century  by  the  Coper- 
nican  System. 

8.  The  Copernican  System. — This  system,  which  is  the 
one  now  held,  regards  the  Sun  as  at  rest  in  the  center,  and 
the  Earth  and  the  planets  as  moving  around  it  in  ellipses. 


8  INTRODUCTION  [8 

The  general  idea  of. this  system  was  very  probably  first  pro- 
mulgated by  Pythagoras,  as  already  stated.  But  to  Coper- 
nicus belongs  the  honor  of  its  revival  after  the  lapse  of  so 
many  centuries.  He  attempted  to  explain  for  the  first  time 
the  variations  of  the  seasons,  the  precession  of  the  equinox- 
es, and  the  stations  and  retrogradations  of  the  planets  accord- 
ing to  this  system.  But  his  knowledge  of  mathematics  was 
not  great,  and,  to  account  for  apparent  irregularities,  he 
was  obliged  to  introduce  a  system  of  epicycles  similar  to  that 
of  Ptolemy. 

Subsequent  philosophers,  however,  sought  to  explain 
the  movements  of  the  planets  by  a  theory  of  vortical  mo- 
tion. This  theory,  probably  suggested  to  the  mind  by  the 
familiar  phenomena  of  whirlpools  and  whirlwinds,  was  in  ex- 
istence ages  before  this  time,  but  the  Copernican  System 
awoke  it  into  new  life  and  energy. 

Kepler  (1571-1630)  conceived  the  Sun  to  be  a  magnet, 
the  Immaterial  substance  of  which  was  sent  forth  radially  in 
all  directions.  These  radiations  rotated  with  the  Sun,  thus 
constituting  a  universal  vortex,  the  motion  of  which  car- 
ried with  it  the  planets.  The  Sun's  surface  was  attractive 
and  its  center  was  repulsive,  and  these  two  forces  (which  Em- 
pedocles,  about  450  B.  C.,  designated  "love"  and  "hate")  was 
everywhere  in  equilibrium,  so  that  a  planet  had  no  tendency 
to  recede  from,  or  approach  towards,  the  Sun.  The  depar- 
ture of  the  planetary  paths  from  the  circular  form  was  ex- 
plained by  supposing  each  planet  to  have  an  attractive  and 
a  repulsive  side,  which  turned  alternately  towards  the  Sun. 
The  supply  of  solar  emanations  and  their  motion  was  con- 
stantly maintained  by  the  Creator,  or  by  some  spirit  specially 
designated  for  that  employment.  By  means  of  the  observa- 
tions of  the  great  Tycho  Brahe  (1546-1601),  to  whom  also 
he  was  indebted  for  valuable  counsel,  Kepler  discovered  his 
three  famous  laws.  He  also  affirmed  the  essential  inertia  of 
matter  (Galileo's  first  law  of  motion) ;  gave  a  complete  the- 
ory of  solar  eclipses  and- calculated  the  exact  epochs  of  the 
transits  of  Venus  and  Mercury  across  the  Sun's  disc. 


9]  INTRODUCTION  9 

To  this  same  epoch  also  belongs  the  honor  of  producing 
the  brilliant  genius  of  Galileo  (1564-1642).  To  this  great 
Italian  we  owe  the  discovery  of  the  three  laws  of  motion, 
the  law  of  falling  bodies,  and  the  isochronism  of  the  pendu- 
lum. He  also,  with  a  telescope  of  his  own  invention,  discov- 
ered the  inequalities  of  the  Moon's  surface  and  the  re- 
flected nature  of  her  light,  the  four  satellites  of  Jupiter,  the 
ring  of  Saturn,  and  the  movable  spots  on  the  Sun's  surface, 
from  which  he  inferred  the  rotation  of  that  body.  For  ad- 
vocating the  Copernican  System  and  for  promulgating  dis- 
coveries antagonistic  to  the  prevailing  creed,  he  was,  at  the 
age  of  seventy,  incarcerated  by  the  Inquisition,  and  after 
a  long  and  painful  trial,  forced  to  retract  the  sublime  truths 
which  he  had  discovered  and  taught. 

9.  The  Vortical  Theory. — By  far  the  ablest  advocate 
and  expositor  of  the  Vortical  Theory  was  the  French  phil- 
osopher, Des  Cartes  (1596-1650).  He  assumed  that  infinite 
space  is  filled  with  infinite  matter,  which  was  originally 
chaotic  and  formless.  In  the  beginning  God  created  par- 
ticles of  nearly  uniform  size,  each  of  which  had  an  axial  rc- 
tation.  Groups  of  such  also  revolved  about  distant  centers. 
Mutual  friction  reduced  the  particles  to  various  sizes,  the 
smallest  of  which  was  called  the  "first  element,"  and  the 
larger  the  "second  element."  Vortices  would  arise  in  the 
mass  owing  to  some  groups  of  revolving  particles  being  more 
powerful  and  energetic  and  subduing  into  harmonious  move- 
ment with  themselves  contiguous  minor  groups.  As  the 
vortical  motion  increased,  the  "second  element"  would  re- 
move from  the  center,  the  larger  and  more  massive  particles 
to  the  greater  distance.  But  the  "first  element,"  having  but 
little  mass,  and  consequently  but  little  momentum,  would 
chiefly  fall  to  the  center,  and  there  aggregate  into  a  sun. 
This  sun  rotated  rapidly,  and  sent  out  emanations  of  its 
element  upon  the  plane  of  its  equator;  these  emanations 
passing  between  the  particles  of  the  second  element  and 
carrying  them  forward;  the  nearest  the  most  rapidly,  because 
they  had  the  least  mass.  Some  of  the  minor  vortices  sub- 


10  INTRODUCTION  [9 

dued  by  the  solar  vortex,  while  they  moved  around  the  latter, 
would  yet  maintain  their  own  vortical  movement,  at  the  cen- 
ter of  which  would  collect  some  -of  the  element,  and  thus 
give  rise  to  planets.  Other  vortices,  subdued  by  the  planet- 
ary vortices,  would  in  a  similar  manner  account  for  the  sat- 
ellites. But  some  vortices  would  escape  from  the  influence 
of  the  solar  vortex,  and  these  last  would  become  comets. 

This  really  absurd  theory  was  so  ingeniously  constructed 
and  so  elaborately  finished  in  detail  by  the  great  intellect  of 
Des  Cartes  that  there  was  little  doubt  of  its  correctness; 
and,  indeed,  it  was  the  most  plausible  theory  of  cosmical 
mechanism  at  that  time.  It  was  advocated  by  many  eminent 
scientists,  and  for  a  time,  maintained  its  ground  upon  the 
continent  against  the  theory  of  gravitation. 

The  German  philosopher  and  mathematician,  Liebnitz, 
accepted  the  general  cosmical  conceptions  of  Des  Cartes,  but 
he  modified  them  so  far  as  to  recognize  the  necessity  of  a 
tangential  force  and  a  central  attractive  force  to  guide  the 
motions  of  the  planets.  Liebnitz  also  conceived  the  germs 
of  geology.  In  his  Protogoea  he  plainly  states  his  belief  that 
our  world  was  primitively  in  a  molten  state;  and  that,  in 
cooling,  it  formed  a  crust  which,  upon  continued  refriger- 
ation, was  crumpled  up  into  mountain  ranges  and  depressed 
into  ocean  basins.  The  action  of  water  upon  the  plutonic 
rocks,  ground  them  down  into  sediment,  which,  collecting  into 
strata,  was  again  solidified.  Thus  he  combined  aqueous  and 
igneous  action  as  in  modern  geology;  although  later  scien- 
tists, less  wise,  wrangled  long  and  bitterly  in  favor  of  either. 

In  various  forms  the  vortical  theory  was  promulgated  and 
defended  by  many  other  philosophers  and  scientists.  But 
it  soon  began  to  lose  ground.  When  fairly  contrasted  with 
the  new  theory  of  gravitation,  its  flimsiness  and  absurdities 
became  plainly  apparent.  Yet,  in  the  words  01  Chambers' 
Encyclopedia,  its  author  "is  not  to  be  laughed  at;  mistakes 
more  ridiculous  than  his  are  gravely  propounded  at  the 
present  day." 


10]  INTRODUCTION  11 

10.  The  Theory  of  Gravitation. — Sir  Isaac  Newton,  the 
illustrious  English  philosopher  and  mathematician  and  found- 
er of  the  theory  of  gravitation,  was  born  in  1642,  the  same 
year  in  which  Galileo  died  a  prisoner  of  the  Inquisition.  It  is 
said  that  in  1665  the  law  of  universal  gravitation  was  sug- 
gested to  his  mind  by  the  fall  of  an  apple  in  his  garden. 
Might  not,  he  reasoned,  the  same  force  that  caused  the 
apple  to  fall,  extend  outwards  to  the  Moon,  and  acting  on  that 
body  with  an  energy  diminished  by  the  distance,  pull  it 
continually  from  the  straight  path  it  would  otherwise  pur- 
sue, and  so  mainain  it  in  its  orbit  around  the  Earth?  No 
sooner  did  this  grand  conception  arise  in  his  brain  than  he 
put  it  to  the  test  of  actual  calculation.  But  the  knowledge 
of  the  Earth's  magnitude  in  those  days  was  very  imperfect, 
and  Newton  employed  a  value  of  the  Earth's  radius  so  large 
that,  according  to  the  law  which  he  had  conceived,  the  fall 
of  a  body  upon  the  Earth's  surface  in  each  second  should 
have  been  only  13.9  ft.,  instead  of  16.1  ft.,  the  actual  fall, 
as  previously  determined  by  Galileo.  This  discrepancy  was 
so  great  that  he  regarded  the  law  of  universal  gravitation 
as  irreconcilable  with  the  facts,  and  he  consequently  aban- 
doned it,  until  Picard,  in  1670,  obtained  a  more  correct  meas- 
ure of  the  Earth.  At  least  in  the  year  1684  it  became  known 
that  he  was  in  possession  of  the  complete  theory  and  its 
demonstration,  and  in  1687  he  was  persuaded  by  his  friends 
to  give  it  to  he  world  in  his  famous  Principia. 

Newton's  law  of  universal  gravitation  may  be  thus  stat- 
ed: Every  particle  of  matter  in  the  universe  attracts  every 
other  particle  with  a  force  directly  proportional  to  the  mass 
of  the  attracting  particle  and  inversely  proportional  to  the 
square  of  the  distance  through  which  it  acts.  Accepting 
this  law  provisionally,  Newton  proceeded  to  its  demonstra- 
tion. He  first  endeavored  to  show  that  the  attraction  of  the 
Earth  is  precisely  the  same  upon  another  body,  as  if  its 
whole  mass  were  compressed  into  one  atom  at  its  center. 
Then,  at  the  distance  of  the  Earth's  radius  from  this  point, 
the  energy  of  its  attraction,  according  to  the  law  of  gravi- 


12  INTRODUCTION  [10 

tation,  is  such  as  to  cause  a  body  to  fall  a  distance  of  16.1 
feet  in  one  second.  Calling  the  Earth's  radius  1,  then  the 
Moon's  distance  from  the  Earth's  center  will  be  about  GO, 
and  to  find  the  energy  of  the  Earth's  attraction  at  the  Moon, 
the  law  of  gravitation  gives  the  following  proportion: 

(60)2  :    (I)2  =  16.1ft.   :  x; 

whence  x,  or  the  pull  of  he  Earth's  attraction  upon  the 
Moon,  is  found  to  be  about  0.00447  ft.  in  each  second.  Know- 
ing the  Moon's  period  of  sidereal  revolution  around  the 
Earth  to  be  about  twenty-seven  days,  seven  hours 
and  forty-three  minutes,  and  its  mean  distance  from 
the  Earth's  center  to  be  about  240,000  miles,  then  the  Moon's 
orbital  velocity  would  be  about  0.64  mile  per  second;  and  by 
a  simple  geometric  theorem,  the  actual  pull  upon  the 
Moon  towards  the  center  of  its  motion  is 


V  (240,000)2   -f    (0.64)2  —  240,000, 

or  about  8.33X10-7  miles,  or  0.0044  feet,  in  each  second.  The 
actual  pull  and  the  theoretic  pull  are  thus  found  to  agree 
very  closely;  and  the  demonstration  was  so  simple,  and  the 
accordance  of  theory  and  fact,  out  of  the  infinitude  of  pos- 
sible discordances,  was  so  striking  and  forcible  that  in  a  few 
years  every  scientist  accepted  it  unreservedly;  and  it  con- 
tinues to  be  accepted  almost  without  the  least  question  or 
doubt,  to  the  present  day. 

But  this  is  by  no  means  all  of  Newton's  theory;  indeed 
it  is  only  the  foundation  upon  which  that  theory  is  built. 
Having  found  that  his  law  of  gravitation  applied  to  the  Moon, 
Newton  next  sought  to  apply  it  to  the  Earth  itself  and  to 
the  other  planets.  Knowing  the  period  of  the  Earth's  revo- 
lution around  the  Sun  and  their  distances  asunder,  he  de- 
termined as  in  the  case  of  the  Moon  and  the  Earth,  the 
attractive  pull  of  the  Sun  upon  the  Earth  in  one  second. 
This  he  found  to  be  about  0.0096  feet,  which  was  about 
315,000  times  the  effect  which  the  Earth's  attraction,  extend- 
ed to  the  same  distance  would  be  able  to  accomplish.  He 
concluded,  therefore,  that  the  Sun's  attraction,  and  conse- 


11]  INTRODUCTION  13 

quently  its  mass,  was  315,000  times  as  great  as  the  Earth's. 
This  solar  attraction  would  cause  a  body  to  fall  at  the  Sun's 
surface  a  distance  of  about  437  feet  in  one  second;  and  tak- 
ing this  fall,  the  Sun's  radius,  and  the  distance  of  every 
planet  in  succession,  to  form  successive  proportions  similar 
to  that  employed  in  the  case  of  the  Earth  and  the  Moon, 
he  found  that  the  pulls  per  second  of  this  supposed  solar 
attraction  were  very  nearly  the  same  as  the  actual  pulls  per 
second  by  which  the  planets  were  drawn  towards  the  Sun 
and  maintained  in  their  orbits.  Here  was  additional  and 
apparently  overwhelming  evidence  in  support  of  his  theory. 
But  it  was  not  all.  The  Jovian  and  the  Saturnian  systems 
furnished  still  further  evidence,  for  it  was  found  that  the 
law  of  gravitation  accounted  for  the  motions  of  the  satellites 
as  fully  as  it  did  for  those  of  the  planets.  Every  member 
of  the  Solar  System  appeared  to  be  strictly  amenable  to 
that  law.  And  thus,  from  the  16.1  feet  determined  by  Ga- 
lileo to  be  the  gravity  pull  in  one  second  at  the  Earth's  sur- 
face, did  Newton  account  for  the  motion  of  the  Moon,  the 
Earth,  the  planets,  the  satellies,  the  comets,  and  even 
the  stars;  for  the  philosopher  Kant,  the  two  Herschels,  the 
two  Struves,  Argelander,  Airy,  and  many  other  astronomers 
agree  that  the  Sun  and  the  stars  have  a  proper  motion  about 
distant  centers,  to  which  they  are  held  in  the  same  manner 
as  the  Moon  is  held  to  the  Earth,  or  the  planets  to  the  Sun. 
Vhus  upon  the  solid  basis  of  actual  observation,  with 
our  own  eyes,  upon  our  own  world,  has  the  theory  of  grav- 
itation been  constructed  and  extended  to  the  whole  universe; 
to  which  it  applies  with  such  apparent  harmony  and  exact- 
ness that  its  implicit  acceptance  as  the  essential  basis  of 
physical  science  by  the  profoundest  intellects  of  the  modern 
world  is  not  at  all  to  be  wondered  at. 

11.  Tihe  Nebular  Hypothesis. — But  after  this  extension 
and  general  acceptance  of  the  theory  of  gravitation,  there 
yet  remained  facts  which  were  totally  inexplicable.  The 
mere  orbital  motions  of  the  planets  and  satellites  were  made 
intelligible,  but  how  about  the  planets  and  satellites  them- 


14  INTRODUCTION  [11 

selves?  Whence  came  they  and  in  what  manner?  How 
came  their  orbits  to  lie  nearly  in  the  same  general  plane — 
that  of  the  Sun's  equator — and  their  motions,  both  of  or- 
bital revolution  and  axial  rotation,*  to  be  generally  in  the 
same  direction — from  west  to  east?  And  how  also  did  it 
happen  that  there  was  an  invariable  relation  beween  a  plan- 
et's distance  from  the  Sun,  or  primary,  and  its  period  of 
circulation  around  that  body?  In  these  adjustments,  Newton 
could  see  only  the  finger  of  God.  In  his  general  scholium 
he  pronounces  them  to  be  the  work  of  an  intelligent  and 
all-powerful  Being. 

There  was  one,  however,  to  whom  such  an  explanation 
was  not  wholly  satisfactory — the  great  French  mathema- 
tician, Laplace  (1749-1827).  "Might  not  these  arrangements 
be  an  effect  of  the  laws  of  motion?"  he  asks,  "and  might 
not  the  Supreme  Intelligence,  which  Newton  invoked,  have 
caused  them  to  depend  on  a  more  general  phenomenon?" 
And  such  a  phenomenon  is,  according  to  his  conjecture, 
"that  of  a  nebulous  matter  dispersed  in  masses  throughout 
the  immensity  of  the  heavens."  In  a  note  at  the  end  of  his 
System  Du  Monde,  Laplace  expands  this  general  idea  more 
into  details.  He  commences  with  a  universal  nebulosity  "so 
diffuse  that  its  existence  is  barely  imaginable".  This  neb- 
ulosity, aggregated  into  individual  masses,  some  of  which 
became  stars  and  one  of  which  became  the  Solar  System. 
Through  the  agency  of  gravitation  these  primordial  masses 
would  develop  nuclei;  the  spiral  or  vortical  motions  of  floc- 
culi  towards  this  nucleated  mass-center  giving  rise  to  a 
rotation  of  the  whole  mass.  Thus  after  a  time  our  system 
consisted  of  a  dense  nucleus,  or  the  Sun,  surrounded  by  a 
vaporous  atmosphere  which  extended  "beyond  the  orbits  of 
all  the  planets".  "The  atmosphere  of  the  sun  could  not 
extend  outwards  indefinitely;  its  limit  would  be  the  point 
where  the  centrifugal  force  due  to  its  movement  of  rotation 
would  counterbalance  gravitation.  But  in  proportion  as  cool- 
ing contracted  the  atmosphere  and  condensed  at  the  sur- 
face of  the  body  the  molecules  located  in  that  region,  the 


12]  INTRODUCTION  15 

movement  of  rotation  increased  by  virtue  of  the  principles 
of  areas."  And  the  velocity  becoming  greater  and  greater 
as  the  solar  atmosphere  contracted  more  and  more,  an  equa- 
torial ring  would  be  left  behind  by  the  contracting  vapor. 
This  ring,  which  is  supposed  to  have  considerable  breadth, 
would  not  be  of  uniform  density  and  tenacity  in  all  its  parts, 
and  would  consequently  fracture  and  collapse  into  a  sphere; 
this  sphere  having  an  orbital  motion  around  the  Sun  de- 
rived from  its  original  rotation  around  that  body,  and  an 
axial  rotation  caused,  and  its  direction  determined,  by  the 
greater  absolute  velocity  of  the  outer  portion  of  the  ring. 
This  process  would  continue  in  the  Sun's  atmosphere  until 
all  the  planets  and  planetoids  were  successively  cast  off  and 
left  behind.  But  in  the  meantime  some  of  the  planets,  in 
contracting  from  the  vaporous  condition,  would  also  acquire 
a  rapid  rotation  and  cast  off  rings  of  vapor  which  would 
disrupt  into  satellites.  The  present  ring  of  Saturn  for  some 
extraordinary  reason  still  remains  unbroken,  although  it  is 
supposed  to  be  either  vaporous  or  composed  of  discrete  par- 
ticles. The  comets  are  entire  strangers  and  their  origin  is 
wholly  mythical. 

Such  is  the  "nebular  hypothesis"  of  Laplace  regarding 
the  origin  of  the  Solar  System.  It  is,  moreover,  with  very 
little  modification,  the  view  now  held;  but  it  may  be  stated 
here  that  recent  eminent  astronomers  are  beginning  to  find 
insuperable  difficulties  in  it. 

12.  Astronomical  Science  Still  in  Its  Infancy. — Having 
thus  rapidly  passed  in  review  the  earliest  astronomical  ideas 
down  to  the  most  recent  cosmological  conceptions,  we  may 
here  pause  for  a  moment's  reflection. 

One  thing  this  glance  at  our  past  physical  views  is  well 
calculated  to  impress  upon  our  minds,  and  that  is  their  prob- 
able immaturity  and  incompleteness.  The  history  of  phys- 
ical astronomy  seems  to  be  one  of  successive  illusions, 
each  tenaciously  held  for  a  time  and  given  up  only  with 
reluctance.  The  most  chimerical  ideas  of  the  heavenly  bodies, 
their  motions,  their  nature,  and  their  origin,  generally 


16  INTRODUCTION  [13 

prevailed  up  to  the  fifteenth  century;  and  it  is  only  in  the 
last  two  centuries  that  anything  like  true  ideas  of  the  mech- 
anism and  origin  of  the  Solar  Sygtem  began  to  be  enter- 
tained. Indeed,  regarding  these  matters,  the  human  intellect 
appears  to  be  even  yet  in  its  infancy.  Not  only  is  it  true 
that  the  number  of  men  who  have  intelligent  ideas  of  the 
mechanism  and  laws  of  the  universe  is  extremely  small  com- 
pared with  the  number  of  those  who  entertain  very  prim- 
itive ideas,  or  who  entertain  no  ideas  whatever  regarding 
the  subject,  but  even  these  intelligent  ideas  are  but  recently 
derived  from  their  fallacious  predecessors;  and  being  thus 
recently  born  of  error,  it  is  really  very  improbable  that  they 
can  be  wholly  free  from  error  themselves. 

The  human  race  may  be  compared  to  a  healthy  and  active 
child  just  beginning  to  exercise  its  reason;  but  with  the 
difference  that  the  former  has  no  tutor.  It  has  to  answer  its 
own  inquiries  and  to  explain  its  own  difficulties.  Conse- 
quently it  makes  mistakes  which,  however,  owing  to  its  ac- 
tivity, it  soon  discovers  and  replaces  by  others  less  palpable. 
Such  seems  to  be  our  intellectual  progress,  from  gross  mis- 
conceptions to  misconceptions  less  gross.  And,  if  our  ex- 
istence and  our  progress  are  to  continue,  such  in  all  proba- 
bility will  our  intellectual  progress  continue  to  be  for  many 
years  to  come. 

13.  Current  Acceptance  of  Scientific  Dogmas. — With  thte 
history  of  our  intellectual  development  before  us — a  history 
of  successive  escapes  from  sense-illusions — a  history  of  man's 
implicit  faith  and  confidence*  in  the  truth  and  perfectness  of 
his  newest  conceptions  of  Nature,  and  of  his  subsequent 
discoveries  that  Nature  is  yet  quite  different  from  his  new- 
est conceptions  of  her — a  history  of  the  fallacies  and  re- 
jection of  all  theories  but  the  last  one,  and  of  the  unquali- 
fied approval  and  acceptance  of  this  one  as  a  demonstrated 
law; — with  such  a  history  of  our  progress  in  the  past  for 
our  present  guidance,  it  seems  that  we  ought  to  be  liberal 
towards  new  ideas,  and  to  regard  our  present  conceptions  as 
very  liable  to  be  fallacious  like  their  predecessors.  The 


14]  INTRODUCTION  17 

fact,  however,  has  every  appearance  of  being  the  contrary. 
The  present  theory  of  gravitation,  e.  g.,  is  regarded  by  near- 
ly all  scientists  as  a  demonstrated  fact.  No  recent  physicist 
questions  its  general  application,  and  apparently  never  has 
questioned  it,  but  has  fully  accepted  it  upon  the  authority 
of  its  illustrious  expounders. 

Thus  "owing  to  the  temptation  to  accept  as  still  sufficient 
any  time-honored  scientific  dogma  having  respectable  spon- 
sors",* it  becomes  possible  that  serious  errors  are,  as  they 
certainly  have  been,  propagated  by  very  intelligent  men. 
They  have  little,  if  any,  doubt  of  the  truth  and  perfectness 
of  current  scientific  doctrines.  They  do  not  exercise  their 
reason  at  all  in  their  investigation.  Their  minds  are  sat- 
isfied with  the  evidences  adduced,  and  the  magnificent  tal- 
ents displayed,  by  their  propoundeis.  Their  respect  and  rev- 
erence for  these  magnificent  talents  are  so  profound  that 
they  invest  the  doctrines  and  protect  them  from  criticism 
as  the  wax  protects  the  copperplate.  In  more  subordinate 
matters  their  acumen  is  great,  and  their  investigation  thor- 
ough; but  the  matters  of  prime  importance  are  as  if  preserv- 
ed under  lock  and  key  from  the  dangerous  pryings  of  rea- 
son and  investigation.  But  in  science  nothing  should  be  held 
so  sacred  as  to  be  above  the  strictest  scrutiny  with  the 
light  of  reason — not  once  for  all,  but  frequently;  for  that 
light  become  ever  brighter  and  more  searching  as  our  knowl- 
edge increases  with  increasing  years.  In  the  words  of  the 
Duke  of  Argyle :  t  "We  should  be  awake  to  the  retarding  ef- 
fects of  a  superstitious  dependence  on  the  authority  of  great 
men,  and  to  the  constant  liability  of  even  the  greatest  observ- 
ers to  found  fallacious  generalizations  on  a  few  scanty  facts." 

14.  Present-day  Doubts. — These  remarks  were  written 
twenty-five  years  ago.  Today  there  are  many  indications 
that  a  few  scientific  men  are  beginning  to  recognize  that 
even  the  basic  and  fundamental  conceptions  of  physical 
science  are  erroneous. 

*Prof.    S.    P.    Langley. 
tNineteenth  Century,  April   '94. 


18  INTRODUCTION  [15 

"Physical  theories  at  the  present  moment  are  so  shaky  at 
the  foundations  that  the  doubt  arises  sometimes  whether  the 
superstructure  is  not  being  built  up  to  rapidly.  The  diffi- 
culties, now  ten  years  old,  in  reconciling  the  undulatory  and 
corpuscular  types  of  radiation  in  one  theory,  the  hopeless 
confusion  that  prevails  as  to  the  necessity  for  the  existence 
of  an  ether,  and  the  modern  discrete  or  quantum  theory  of 
energy,  seem  to  call  for  a  more  drastic  reconsideration.  .  . 
of  many  of  the  simplest  physical  conceptions  and  their  exper- 
imental basis.  There  seems  to  be  really  no  evidence  for 
this.  All  experiment  and  observation  justify  is  its  propa- 
gation between  portions  of  space  occupied  by  matter.  Else- 
where it  may  not  be  propagated  at  all.  Recent  suggestions 
that  it  is  propagated  along  'Faraday  tubes,'  which  starting 
from  the  radiator  must  necessarily  end  'somewhere,'  seem 
vaguely  to  imply  something  of  the  kind.  But  what  a  dif- 
ferent complexion  would  be  assumed  by  some  of  the  larger 
generalizations  of  science  in  the  field,  e.  g.,  of  the  maintain- 
ance  of  solar  and  cosmical  energy,  not  to  mention  problems 
in  wireless  telegraphy  connected  with  the  curvature  of  the 
waves  round  the  earth  .  .  .  if  it  were  frankly  confessed 
at  the  outset  that  we  are  really  in  complete  ignorance  as 
to  the  answer  to  this  simplest  first  question  about  the  nature 
of  radiation."* 

15.  Plan  of  This  Work. — In  the  following  pages  these 
matters  are  to  be  examined  more  in  detail.  And  even  deep- 
er and  more  important  subjects  than  the  theory  of  radiation 
will  be  looked  into,  beginning  with  the  very  cornerstone  of 
present-day  physical  science,  the  Theory  of  Gravitation  it- 
self; upon  which,  in  fact,  nearly  all  other  physical  theories 
rest,  and  with  which  they  consequently  all  stand  or  fall  to- 
gether. 

The  Law  of  Gravitation  is  the  essential  principle  of  the 
Theory  of  Gravitation,  and  so  will  first  engage  our  attention. 
All  the  principal  phenomena  which  that  law  is  held  to  gov- 
ern are  to  pass  careful  examination  in  the  light  of  that 
theory;  the  results  of  which  evidently  appear  to  justify  the 
examination  of  the  same  phenomena  again  farther  on  in 
the  light  of  a  new  theory. 

Frederick   Soddy;   Nature,   92,    339. 


PART  I 


OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  THEORY  OF  GRAVITATION 


Men  of  science  do  not  pledge  themselves  to  creeds;  they 
are  bound  by  articles  of  no  sort.  There  is  not  a  single  be- 
lief that  it  is  not  a  bounden  duty  with  them  to  hold  with  a 
light  hand,  and  to  part  with  it  cheerfully,  the  moment  it  is 
proved  to  be  contrary  to  any  fact  great  or  small. 

—PROF.  HUXLEY. 


CHAPTER  I 


THE  LAW  OF  GRAVITATION 


Newton's  law  is,  doubtless,  not  absolutely  correct;  .  .  . 
the  attraction  is  not  rigorously  proportional  to  the  inverse 
squares  of  the  distances  but  to  some  other  function  of  them. 
In  this  way  Prof.  Newcomb  has  recently  tried  to  explain 
the  movement  of  the  perihelion  of  Mercury. 

— M.  H.  PO1NCARE. 

It  is  always  safe  and  philosophic  to  distinguish,  as  much 
as  is  in  our  power,  fact  from  theory;  the  experience  of  past 
ages  is  sufficient  to  show  us  the  wisdom  of  such  a  course; 
and  considering  the  constant  tendency  of  the  mind  to  rest  on 
assumption,  we  ought  to  remember  that  it,  in  such  cases, 
becomes  a  prejudice,  and  inevitably  interferes,  more  or  less, 
with  a  clear-sighted  judgment.— MICHAEL  FARADAY. 

In  order  to  seek  the  truth  it  is  necessary  once  in  the 
course  of  our  life  to  doubt,  as  far  as  possible,  of  all  things. 
As  we  are  at  one  time  children,  and  as  we  formed  various 
judgments  regarding  the  objects  presented  to  our  senses, 
when  as  yet  we  had  not  the  entire  use  of  our  reason,  nu- 
merous prejudices  stand  in  the  way  of  arriving  at  the  knowl- 
edge of  truth;  and  of  these  it  seems  impossible  to  rid  our- 
selves, unless  we  undertake,  once  in  our  lifetime,  to  doubt 
of  all  things  in  which  we  may  discover  even  the  smallest 
suspicion  of  uncertainty.— DES  CARTES. 


20  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [16 

16.  Definition  of  the  Law. — What  is  the  law  of  gravi- 
tation? Prof.  R.  A.  Proctor*  defines  the  law  as  follows: 
"Every  particle  of  matter  in  the  universe  attracts  every 
other  particle  with  a  force  varying*  directly  as  the  masses 
and  inversely  as  the  square  of  the  distance";  while  in  the 
same  work  (Art.  Gravitation),  Sir  R.  S.  Ball  states  the 
law  to  be:  "Every  particle  of  matter  in  the  universe  at- 
tracts every  other  particle  with  a  force  varying  directly  as 
the  product  of  the  masses  and  inversely  as  the  square  of  the 
distance." 

Do  these  two  statements  of  the  law  agree?  Do  varying 
"as  the  masses"  and  varying  "as  the  product  of  the  masses" 
mean  the  same  thing?  If  the  masses  of  the  attracting  par- 
ticles be  2  and  5,  will  not  the  attraction  between  them, 
varying  as  the  masses,  be  the  sum  of  2  and  5,  or  7,.  and  vary- 
ing as  the  product  of  the  masses,  be  the  product  of  2  and  5, 
or  10?  Yet  strange  as  it  may  seem,  about  half  of  the  scien- 
tific authorities  give  the  sum-statement  of  the  law  and  the 
other  half  the  product-statement. 

This  criticism,  which  is  not  made  here  for  the  first  time, 
is  not  advanced  as  one  of  very  great  importance.  The 
present  writer  does  not  stand  sponsor  for  either  the  sum  or 
the  product  statement.  But  indignant  protests  have  been 
made  because  any  difference  whatever  should  be  held  to 
exist  between  the  two,  as  they  both  are  alleged  to  mean 
precisely  the  same  thing.  It  is  submitted  to  the  reader 
whether  or  not  the  expression,  "Every  particle  of  matter  in 
the  universe  attracts  every  other  particle  with  a  force  di- 
rectly as  their  masses"!  has  the  same  meaning  as  when  it 
is  stated  that  the  particles  attract  each  other  with  a  force 
"directly  as  the  product  of  the  masses",  as  is  frequently 
done  in  scientific  textbooks.  All  that  is  here  contended  xor 
is  that  there  is  a  very  material  difference;  and  that  the 
existence  of  such  different  expressions  for  a  fundamental  law 

*Ency.   Britt.,    Art.    "Astronomy." 
tNewcomb's  Pop.   Astron.,    6th  Ed.,   p.    81. 


17]  THE    LAW   OF    GRAVITATION  21 

in  physics  manifests  a  looseness  and  carelessness  of  thought 
which  ought  not  to  exist  among  scientific  men. 

Newton  himself  certainly  used  the  product-statement; 
and,  indeed,  the  phrase,  "Every  particle  of  matter  in  the 
universe  attracts  every  other  particle",  clearly  implies  this 
and. nothing  else.  To  illustrate,  let  us  suppose  that  the  mass- 
es of  the  two  attracting  bodies  A  and  B,  are  m  and  n  re- 
spectively. Then  each  particle  of  A  attracts  each  of  the  n 
particles  of  B,  making  n  units  of  attraction  for  the  one  par- 
ticle of  A;  and  as  there  are  altogether  m  particles  in  A, 
there  would  be  obviously  m  times  n,  or  mn,  units  of  attrac- 
tion between  the  two  bodies.  Or,  in  other  words,  the  at- 
traction between  the  two  bodies  would  be  represented  by 
the  product  of  their  masses.  It  is  clear  that,  if  it  "varied 
directly  as  the  masses",  the  attraction  between  A  and  B 
would  be  entirely  different,  or  m  +  n,  instead  of  mn.  So  that 
such  a  statement  as  "Every  two  bodies  or  portions  of  matter 
in  the  universe  attract  each  other  with  a  force  propor- 
tioned directly  to  the  quantity  of  matter  they  contain"*  is 
simply  a  contradiction  in  terms,  ?n  impossibility  (unless 
the  "particles"  be  of  atomic  dimensions).! 

17.  Application  of  the  Law. — Let  U3  now  examine  the  lav/ 
in  the  light  of  the  product-theory.  Suppose  two  bodies,  A  and 
B,  each  consisting  of  m  particles,  attracting  e^ch  other  at 
unit  distance.  Then  the  attraction  between  them  will  be 
mXm,  or  m2.  Now  let  one  particle  be  transferred  from  A 
to  B,  and  then  the  attraction  between  the  two  bodies  will 
be  (m — i)  (^-^i),  or  rn- — 1>  which,  stivncely  enough,  is 
one  unit  less  than  it  was  before,  although  the  amount  of 
matter  in  the  two  bodies  remains  unchanged.  If,  instead  of 
transferring  one  particle  from  A  to  B,  we  transfer  m— 1  par- 
ticles, then,  according  to  the  product-theory,  the  attraction 
between  the  two  bodies  will  be  2m — 1,  which  is  not  only 
less  than  the  product  of  the  masses  of  the  two  bodies  be- 
fore the  transfer,  but  is  less  even  than  the  sum  of  the  mass- 
es of  the  two  bodies!  And,  indeed,  if  the  remaining  par- 

*Webstcr's    Dictionary. 

tFcr  further  discussion  of   this  subject   see  Arts.  222,  231,   242. 


22  OBJECTIONS    TO   THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [18 

ticle  of  A  be  also  transferred  to  B,  it  may  fairly  be  inferred 
that  the  resulting  body  would  have  no  attraction  whatso- 
ever! For  2m  XO  =  0. 

The  same  reasoning  applies  for  systems  of  three,  four, 
or  more,  bodies;  the  ratio  of  the  maximum  total  attrac- 
tion to  the  minimum  total  attraction  in  each  system  being  pre- 
cisely the  same  as  in  the  case  of  two  bodies,  so  long  as  each 
body  in  that  system  is  kept  at  unit  distance  from  every  other 
body  in  that  system. 

18.  Application  to  the  Moon  and  the  Earth. — But  does 
this  teaching  of  the  law  of  gravitation  conform  with  the 
facts?  For  example,  let  the  mass  of  the  Earth  be  E  and 
that  of  the  Moon  E/80;  then  the  attraction  between  them 
according  to  the  law  will  be  E2/80.  Then,  transferring  half 
the  Moon's  mass  to  the  Earth,  the  masses  of  the  two  bodies 
will  be  161E/160  and  E/160,  and  the  attraction  between  them 
will  be,  very  nearly,  E2/159,  or  only  about  half  as  much  as 
before.  In  other  words,  halving  the  Moon's  mass  halves 
the  Earth-Moon  attraction  although  the  Earth's  mass  is  in- 
creased! What  has  become  of  the  other  half  of  the  Earth's 
attraction? 

Sir  R.  S.  Ball,  in  his  article  on  gravitation  in  the  Ency- 
clopedia Brittanica  illustrates  the  action  of  gravity  by  sup- 
posing two  attracting  bodies  to  be  held  apart  by  a  rigid  rod 
between  them.  The  pressure  exerted  upon  one  end  of 
the  rod  by  one  body  is  shown  to  be  precisely  equal  to  the 
pressure  upon  the  other  end  of  the  rod  by  the  other  body, 
regardless  of  the  relative  sizes  of  the  two  bodies.  And  it 
is  shown  that,  by  doubling,  trebling,  etc.,  the  mass  of  the 
body  at  one  end  of  the  rod,  the  pressure  exerted  upon  each 
end  of  the  rod  is  consequently  doubled,  trebled,  etc. 

Let  us  now  use  this  illustration  in  the  case  of  the  Moon 
and  the  Earth.  The  pressure  of  the  Moon  upon  one  end 
of  the  rigid  rod  separating  it  from  the  Earth,  is  precisely 
equal  to  that  of  the  Earth  upon  the  other  end,  the  two 
bodies  being  supposed  to  be  at  rest  and  the  attraction  of 
gravity  being  the  only  force  operating  between  them.  Doub- 


19]  THE   LAW   OF    GRAVITATION  23 

ling  the  mass  of  the  Moon,  the  pressure  on  each  end  of  the 
rod  is  doubled.  Trebling  the  mass  of  the  Moon,  the  pres- 
sure on  each  end  of  the  rod  is  trebled.  And  so  on.  But  if 
instead  of  doubling  the  mass  of  the  Moon,  we  double  the 
mass  of  the  Earth,  what  will  happen  then?  The  mass  of 
the  Earth  is  eighty  times  as  great  as  that  of  the  Moon,  and 
one  would  reasonably  think  that  the  doubling  of  this  greater 
mass  ought  to  produce  a  correspondingly  greater  effect. 
But,  according  to  the  law  of  gravitation,  it  does  not.  The 
pressure  upon  each  end  of  the  rod  is  doubled  when  the 
Earth's  mass  is  doubled,  precisely  the  same  as  when  the 
Moon's  mass  is  doubled.  For  doubling  the  mass  of  the 
Earth  only  doubles  its  attraction  upon  the  Moon,  which  thus 
would  press  upon  the  rod  with  twice  the  weight  it  had  be- 
fore, just  as  when  its  own  mass  was  doubled.  Moreover, 
this  follows  as  a  mathematical  result  from  the  product- 
theory  of  the  law  of  gravitation.  For  the  two  masses  be- 
ing 1  and  80,  respectively,  doubling  the  first  gives  a  product 
of  2X80,  or  160,  and  doubling  the  second  gives  a  product 
1X160,  or  160,  as  before. 

To  make  the  absurdity  of  this  conclusion  still  plainer,  let 
one  particle  of  matter  be  at  one  end  of  the  rod,  and  let 
all  the  matter  of  the  universe,  excepting  the  one  particle 
and  the  rod,  be  at  the  other  end.  Then,  according  to  the 
law  of  gravitation,  doubling  the  mass  of  the  particle  would 
cause  precisely  the  same  effect  as  doubling  the  mass  of 
the  rest  of  the  universe!  Or.  in  other  words,  the  attrac- 
tive effect  of  a  single  particle  is  practically  the  same,  ac- 
cording to  the  law  of  gravitation,  as  that  of  the  whole  uni- 
verse. What  a  strange  jumble  of  conceptions  we  sometimes 
really,  though  unwittingly,  entertain!* 

19.  The  Law  of  Gravitation  and  the  Conservation  of  En- 
ergy.— What,  then,  is  the  law  of  the  attraction  of  gravity? 
How  does  one  mass  of  matter  act  upon  another  mass  with- 
out connection,  and  apparently  without  requiring  time  for 
the  transmission  of  the  impulse,  however  great  the  distance 

*For  further  discussion  of  this  subject  see  Arts.  206,   213,   232,   244. 


24  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [19 

at  which  it  acts  ?  What  logical  right  have  we  to  assume, 
as  scientists  do,  that  a  something  called  gravity  is  so  won- 
derfully radiated  out  in  all  direction*  into  empty  space,  to 
an  infinite  distance,  where  it  meets  with  no  reciprocally  at- 
tracting body?  And  then  again:  "Every  particle  of  matter 
in  the  universe  attracts  every  other  particle"!  This  is 
part  of  the  statement  of  the  law  of  gravitation.  What  does 
it  imply?  If  the  attraction  of  every  smallest  particle  of 
matter  in  the  universe  extends  outwards  on  all  sides  of  that 
particle  to  the  utmost  limits  of  the  universe,  or  to  infinite 
distances,  what  becomes  of  the  law  of  the  conservation  of 
energy?  For  this  statement  implies  not  only  an  infinite 
amount  of  attractive  force  in  every  particle  of  matter,  but 
also  the  continual  action,  expenditure,  and  generation  of 
this  infinite  force  through  all  eternity;  or  in  other  words, 
a  double-actioned  infinity  of  force  (in  space  and  time)  for 
every  particle  of  matter!  Would  any  person  of  intelligence 
claim  that  a  material  particle,  independently  of  any  exter- 
nal cause,  could  forever  continue  to  generate  any  other  form 
of  energy,  such  as  heat  or  light?  And,  if  not,  why  do  scien- 
tists make  the  sole  exception  in  favor  of  gravity?  For 
since  every  known  property  of  the  particle  remains  un- 
changed and  unaffected  by  this  doubly  infinite  generation 
of  energy  by  it,  there  appears  to  be,  in  the  light  of  our  pres- 
ent knowledge.,  no  other  conclusion  than  that  this  infinite 
supply  of  force  is  actually  created  out  of  nothing!  In  the 
words  of  Samuel  Laing: 

"This  affects  not  only  the  permanent  maintenance  of  the 
supply  of  gravity,  but  goes  even  deeper  to  the  fundamental 
axioms  of  all  modern  conceptions,  whether  scientific  or  phil- 
osophical, of  the  universe,  viz.,  the  Conservation  of  Energy. 
You  cannot  make  something  out  of  nothing;  you  cannot  cre- 
ate energy  or  matter,  but  only  transform  them.  Good;  but 
how  about  that  which  is  one  of  the  principal  manifestations 
of  energy  in  the  universe — that  of  gravity?  You  can  catch 
limited  portions  of  it,  transform  them  into  mechanical  power, 
and  then  backwards  and  forwards  as  you  like  in  heat,  light, 
chemical  action,  electricity  and  magnetism,  neither  gaining 

nor    losing    by    any    of    these    transformations If 

Thomson  and  Helmhoitz  assume  an  infinite  fund  of  energy  in 


20]  THE    LAW    OF    GRAVITATION  25 

the  form  of  gravity  to  account  for  heat,  why  shall  they  not 
as  well  assume  an  infinite  amount  of  heat  to  account  for 
gravity?  And  if  heat  is  dissipated  by  use  until  it  is  exhaust- 
ed, or  reduced  to  one  sui^onary  average  of  temperature, 
and  worlds  and  suns  die,  why  should  gravity  be  gifted  with 
perpetual  youth  and  escape  the  general  law  of  birth,  matur- 
ity and  death?"* 

So  much  for  the  law  of  gravitation.  Next  may  be  con- 
sidered the  application  of  that  law  in  the  broader  field  of 
the  theory  of  gravitation.! 

20.  The  Attraction  of  a  Sphere  or  Spherical  Shell. — Af- 
ter discovering  the  law  of  gravitation,  Newton  realized  that 
there  was  needed  a  proof  of  a  further  proposition,  viz.,  that 
a  sphere,  however  large,  would  attract  another  sphere,  how- 
ever close,  as  though  its  mass  were  concentrated  in  one 
point  at  its  center.  This, 

"which  he  ultimately  succeeded  in  proving  .  .  .  com- 
pleted the  great  law  which  was  given  to  the  world  in  1686; 
but  without  this  proposition,  the  law  of  gravitation  would 
have  remained  a  mere  rough  approximation,  instead  of  tak- 
ing its  place  at  once,  and  thereafter,  as  the  most  accurate 
law  known  to  science."! 

In  Thomson's  and  Tait's  Natural  Philosophy,  sec.  488, 
there  is  a  demonstration  of  this  proposition  with  regard  to 
a  spherical  shell,  which  is  too  long  to  be  quoted  here.  It 
must  suffice  to  show  that  it  cannot  be  proved  that  the  at- 
traction of  equal  diametrically  opposite  portions  of  that 
shell  on  an  external  body,  P,  is  J:he  same  as  if  both  por- 
tions were  at  the  center  of  the  shell. 

Let  C  be  the  center  of  a  shell,  P  a  body  external  to  the 
shell,  and  A  the  point  of  the  shell  nearest  to  P.  Also  let 
CP=h  and  CA— a.  Then,  according  to  the  law  of  gravita- 
tion, the  sum  of  the  attractions  of  an  area  at  A,  the  near- 
est point  to  P,  and  of  an  equal  area  at  a  point  diametrically 
opposite  to  A,  will  be  as  follows:  l/(b+a)2  +  l/(b— a)2, 

*Problems  of  the  Future;  Humboldt  .Library  of  Science,  No.  166, 
p.  23. 

tThis   subject   is  continued   in  Arts.   207,   214,    223,     233,    245e. 
$Prof.  H.  H.   Turner;   Nature,   83,    338. 


26  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [20 

which,  if  the  proposition  were  true,  would  equal  2/b2.  But 
this  equation  reduces  to  a--bV3,  which  is  absurd.  If 
we  place  the  equal  elements  at  opposite  ends  of  a  diameter 
of  the  shell  at  right  angles  to  CP,  it  is  obvious  at  a  glance 
that  each  area  will  be  farther  from  P  than  it  would  be  at 
the  center.  And  the  computation  for  intermediate  diam- 
eters, equally  distributed  with  respect  to  the  shell's  sur- 
face— some  of  which  give  a  surplus  and  some  a  deficit,  of  at- 
traction, as  compared  with  the  attraction  of  the  pair  of  op- 
posite elements  at  the  center — do  not  at  all  appear  to  in- 
dicate that  they  balance  one  another. 

In  Thomson  and  Tait's  demonstration  referred  to,  the 
total  force  of  the  shell  on  P  was  found  to  be  4^  da2/(CP)2, 
where  d  is  the  density  of  the  surface  and  a  equals  CA,  the 
radius  of  the  shell.  Now  if  CP  be  continually  diminished, 
this  force,  according  to  the  formula,  would  evidently  con- 
tinually increase  until,  as  the  particle  P  moved  within  the 
shell  and  arrived  at  the  center,  it  would  become  infinitely 
great;  whereas  the  actual  teaching  elsewhere  is  that  it 
should  become  zero  at  that  point.  In  sec.  479  the  authors 
state  that  "a  particle  placed  within  the  surface  is  not  at- 
tracted in  any  direction".  But  this  also  leads  to  a  con- 
clusion just  as  strange,  for  when  P  would  arrive  at  A,  the 
force  would  be  at  a  maximum,  whence,  passing  just  with- 
in the  shell,  it  instantly  becomes  zero. 

In  the  case  of  a  solid  sphere,  the  same  reasoning  would 
apply  to  the  attraction  Of  two  equal  and  diametrically  op- 
posite elements  upon  an  external  particle  as  in  the  case 
of  a  spherical  shell.  According  to  the  law  of  gravitation, 
no  two  equal  elements  of  a  sphere,  equally  distant  and  dia- 
metrically opposite  from  the  center,  can  have  the  same  at- 
tractive force  upon  an  external  particle  as  if  they  were  sit- 
uated at  the  center;  and  as  the  whole  sphere  consists  of 
such  pairs  of  elements,  no  sphere,  either  homogenous  or 
uniformly  increasing  or  decreasing  in  density  towards  the 
center,  can  act  on  an  external  particle,  according  to  the  law 
of  gravitation,  as  if  its  whole  mass  were  concentrated  at 


21]  THE   LAW   OF    GRAVITATION  27 

its  center.  Pages  of  further  comment  could  not  make  this 
any  plainer.* 

21.  Terrestial  Attraction. — One  method  of  measuring  the 
Earth's  density  is  by  means  of  a  pendulum.  The  number  of 
its  oscillations  in  a  given  time  depends  upon  the  strength 
of  the  attraction  of  gravity.  It  is  in  accordance  with  the 
theory  of  gravitation  that,  as  we  descend  beneath  the  Earth's 
surface,  the  Earth's  attraction  will  decrease  in  strength  in  ex- 
act proportion  to  the  mass  of  the  layer  penetrated;  and, 
knowing  the  density  of  the  latter,  we  can  compare  with  it 
the  density  of  the  rest  of  the  Earth  by  comparing  the  force 
of  gravity  at  the  surface  with  the  force  of  gravity  at  the  in- 
side of  the  layer.  In  1843,  Sir  G.  B.  Airy,  by  means  of  the 
pendulum,  measured  the  force  of  gravity  at  the  surface  and 
at  the  bottom  of  Harton  Colliery,  1200  feet  deep.  But,  to 
his  astonishment,  he  found  that  the  force  of  gravity  at  the 
bottom  of  the  colliery  was  considerably  greater  than  at  the 
surface. 

Prof.  Young f  endeavors  to  explain  this  as  follows: 

"If  we  go  down  into  a  mine  the  effect  on  gravity  is  the 
same  as  if  a  shell  composed  of  all  that  part  of  the  earth 
above  our  level  had  been  removed.  At  the  same  time 
our  distance  from  the  earth's  center  has  been  decreased  by 
d,  the  depth  of  the  mine.  At  the  surface,  g  =kE/R:j.  .  .  . 
At  the  bottom  of  the  mine  g'  =  k(E — shell )/(R — d)*.  The 
ratio  of  g  to  g'  is  given  by  pendulum  observations.  Obvious- 
ly, however,  the  mass  of  the  shell  is  difficult  to  determine 
with  accuracy.  And  it  is  by  no  means,  homogenous;  so  that 
there  is  no  great  reason  for  surprise  at  the  discordant  re- 
sult, g'  was  found  to  be  actually  greater  than  g,  showing 
that,  although  at  the  center  of  the  earth  the  attraction  nec- 
essarily becomes  zero,  yet,  as  we  descend  below  the  surface, 
gravity  increases,  for  a  time  down  to  some  unknown,  but 
probably  not  very  great,  depth,  where  it  becomes  a  max- 
imum." 

Now  in  the  first  place,  it  is  very  doubtful,  to  say  the 
least,  that  gravity  would  be  increased  owing  to  the  Earth's 
diminished  radius.  Even  if  the  attraction  of  the  outer  shell 

*This   subject   continued  in  Arts.   208,   215,    216,   224,    234,   246. 
tGeneral  Astronomy,    Art.  169. 


28  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [22 

of  1200  feet  thickness  were  eliminated,  it  is  hardly  likely 
that,  according  to  the  theory,  the  smaller  Earth  would  have 
a  greater  force  of  gravity  at  its  surface  than  before.  Sim- 
ple arithmetic  plainly  shows  that  the  Earth's  gravity  ought 
to  decrease  with  depth  beneath  the  surface  even  according 
to  Young's  own  explanation.  Calling  the  Earth's  diameter 
8000  miles,  then  the  Earth's  volume  is  267  billions  of  cubic 
miles  and  the  volume  of  the  shell  is  46  millions  of  cubic 
miles;  which  is  0.00017  of  the  Earth's  volume.  The  differ- 
ence between  R2  and  (R — d)2  is  about  1800,  which  is  0.0001- 
125  of  R2;  so  that  the  numerator  of  the  fraction,  (E— shell) 
/(R — d)2,  is  diminished  considerably  more  than  the  denom- 
inator, as  compared  with  the  fraction  E/R2.  It  is  true  that 
volume  is  considered  instead  of  mass;  but  if  we  allow  just 
half  the  volume  of  the  shell  for  its  mass,  g'  would  be  only 
1/500  of  one  per  cent  greater  than  g,  which  would  account 
for  only  about  one-third  of  the  difference  observed.* 

It  is  clearly  absurd,  then,  to  hold  that,  by  the  law  of 
gravitation,  the  attraction  of  the  Earth  could  be  greater  at 
the  bottom  of  the  mine  than  at  its  mouth. t  (For  defection  of 
the  theory  of  gravitation  above  the  Earth's  surface,  as  well 
as  below  it,  see  Art.  247). 

22.     Gravity  in  an  Ellipse. — 

"If  a  body  be  projected  with  a  very  small  velocity  from 
the  top  of  a  tower  near  the  earth's  surface,  it  will  fall  nearly 
straight  downwards.  If  the  earth  were  concentrated  at  the 
point  in  its  center  so  that  the  body  should  not  strike  its  sur- 
face, it  would  move  in  a  very  long,  narrow  ellipse  having  the 
center  of  the  earth  at  the  farther  focus,  and  would  return 
to  the  original  point  after  an  interval  of  29.9  minutes."} 

But  it  is  generally  accepted  that  if  a  straight  hole  were 
bored  through  the  Earth's  center  from  one  surface  to  the 
other,  and  a  body  dropped  into  the  hole  from  one  surface,  it 
would  continually  increase  in  velocity  towards  the  center 
and,  if  not  resisted  by  the  air,  would  acquire  a  momentum 
at  that  point  which  would  carry  it  to  the  opposite  surface; 
whence  it  would  vibrate,  like  a  pendulum,  back  again  to  the 

*Nature,   59,   131. 

tContinued    in    Arts.    209,    216,    225,    247,    263e. 

?Prof.  Young,   Gen.  Astron.,  Art.  435. 


24]  THE    LAW    OF    GRAVITATION  29 

starting  point;  and  so  on.  Now  Prof.  Young,  and  Newton, 
and  in  fact,  all  scientific  authorities,  hold  that  the  Earth's 
attractive  action  is  the  same  as  if  its  whole  mass  were  con- 
centrated at  a  point  at  its  center,  and  that  if  a  body,  start- 
ing from  the  surface  distance  from  that  center,  were  given 
a  small  horizontal  velocity,  no  matter  how  small,  presum- 
ably, the  body  would  go  just  to  the  center,  turn  sharply 
round  it,  and  come  back  again  to  the  starting-point.  Isn't 
this  strange?  The  slight  projection  of  the  body  horizon- 
tally has  the  tremendous  effect  of  annihilating  half  of  the 
body's  previous  path!  Can  this  be  true?  or  is  there  some- 
thing radically  wrong  ;n  our  premises?* 

23.  The    Runaway    Stars. — All   the   planetary  movements 
of    the    Solar    and    Sidereal    Systems    are   held    amenable    to 
the  law  of  gravitation.     Yet  Prof.  Newcomb 

"has  shown  by  mathematical  calculation  that  the  gravitation 
of  the  whole  universe,  assuming  it  to  contain  100,000,000 
stars  each  on  the  average  five  times  larger  than  the  sun, 
would  require  to  be  sixty-four  times  greater  than  it  reaily  is 
to  have  given  one  star,  1830  Groombridge,  the  velocity  of  200 
miles  per  second  which  it  actually  possesses.  .  .  .  Of 
course  this  applies  with  greater  force  to  a  star  like  Arcturus, 
moving  with  the  velocity  of  400  miles  per  second. "t 

24.  Gravitation  and  Solar  Heat. — According  to  the  theory 
of  gravitation,  the  Sun's  mass  is  contracting  continually  upon 
itself   owing   to    the    continual    strain    of    its    central    attrac- 
tion;   this   contraction   being  the  main   source  of  the   Sun's 
heat  for  all  past  and  future  ages.     This  is  the  generally  ac- 
cepted view  now  and  has  been  for  a  long  time.     Yet 

"leading  mathematicians,  such  as  Sir  W.  Thomson  and  Helm- 
holtz,  assign  twenty,  or  more  probably,  ten  millions  of  years 
as  the  outside  possible  past  duration  of  a  supply  of  heat  from 
the  Sun,  sufficient  to  maintain  the  earth  under  conditions 
enabling  it  to  support  life.  Lyell  and  a  majority  of  the  best 
geologists  consider  that  one  hundred  or  two  hundred  millions 

*Continucd    in    Arts.    210,    217,    226,    235,    248. 

tin  a  recent  paper  in  The  Astrophysical  Journal,  May  1914, 
Messrs.  W.  S.  Adams  and  Arnold  Kohlschuetter  give  the  radial  veloc- 
ity of  Lai.  1966  as  — H25  km.,  or  202  miles,  which  is  declared  to  be 
"the  highest  recorded  radial  velocity  among  the  stars.''  (Nature,  93, 
416).  Later,  however.  (Nature,  96,323),  Dr.  Adams  assigns  an  abso 
lute  velocity  of  577  km. /sec.  to  the  star  AOe  14320. 


30  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [25 

of  years  are  required  to  account  for  the  undoubted  facts  of 
geology  since  life  began.  Each  side  support  their  case  by 
arguments,  which,  taken  by  themselves,  seem  conclusive. 
And  yet  the  gap  between  them  is  »o  wide  that  it  cannot  be 
bridged  over  by  mutual  concessions,  and  it  is  evident  that 
there  must  be  some  fundamental  error  in  the  assumed  data 
on  one  side  or  the  other.* 

This  estimate  of  the  Sun's  heat  is  based  on  a  pres- 
ent shrinkage  of  35  metres  per  year  and  theoretic  distribu- 
tion of  the  heat  thus  engendered;  while  geology  determines 
the  time  from  the  rate  of  deposition  and  denudation  of  the 
various  strata  of  the  Earth's  crust,  and  is  based  primarily 
on  actual  observation.! 

25.  The  Pressure  of  Sunlight. — Many  eminent  physicists 
still  hold  that  the  law  of  gravitation  is  perfectly  true;  others, 
that  it  is  only  approximately  true,  and  still  others,  that  it 
appears  to  be  rather  questionable.  Of  the  former,  Prof.  R. 
A.  Proctor  says: 

"The  principle  of  gravitation,  which  had  been  found  by 
Newton  to  confine  the  moon  and  the  planets  to  their  respec- 
tive orbits,  was  shown  to  occasion  every  apparent  irregular- 
ity, however  minute,  in  the  motions  of  the  planets  and  sat- 
ellites; and  those  very  irregularities  which  were  at  first 
brought  forward  as  objections  to  tne  hypothesis  have  been 
ultimately  found  to  afford  the  most  triumphant  proofs  of  its 
accuracy  and  have  placed  the  truth  of  the  Newtonian  theory 
beyond  the  reach  of  all  future  cavil. "$ 

Samuel  Laing,  himself  a  severe  scientific  critic,  says: 

"If  there  is  one  thing  more  certain  than  another,  it  is  that 
mathematical  calculations,  based  on  the  Newtonian  law  of 
gravity,  explain  all  the  movements  of  the  Solar  System." § 

And  Sir  John  Herschel  is  still  more  positive.     He  says : 

"What  Newton  left  undone,  however,  his  successors  have 
accomplished  and  at  this  day  it  is  hardly  too  much  to  assert 
that  there  is  not  a  single  perturbation,  great  or  small,  which 
observation  has  become  precise  enough  to  detect  and  place 

*Samuel  Laing,  Humboldt  Librsry  of  Science,  No.   166,  p.  9. 

tSee    also    Arts.    227,    2:36. 

JEncy.   Britt.,   Art.    "Astronomy." 

§Hnm"boldt  Library  of  Science,  No.   166,  p.   36. 


26]  THE    LAW   OF    GRAVITATION  31 

in  evidence,  which  has  not  been  traced  up  to  its  origin  in  the 
mutual  parts  of  our  system,  and  minutely  accounted  for  in 
its  numerical  amount  and  value  by  strict  calculation  on  New- 
ton's principles."* 

Yet  today,  there  are  admittedly  a  dozen  instances  in 
which  the  motions  of  the  Moon  and  planets  are  inexplicable 
by  Newton's  law;  and  moreover  we  have  recently  discover- 
ed, or  think  we  have,  a  very  formidable  perturbing  force 
which  was  wholly  unconsidered  by  these  quoted  authorities; 
viz.,  the  pressure  of  sunshine.  As  early  as  1873,  Maxwell 
found  that  the  sunlight  at  the  surface  of  the  Earth  should 
oxoi  t  a  pressure  of  0.592X10-10  grams  per  sq.  cm.  Prof. 
Peter  Lebedew  gives  the  pressure  as  0.4  milligramme  per 
square  metre  of  Earth-section,  or  about  5000  tons  on  the 
whole  Earth  t,  which  was  corroborated  by  Profs.  E.  F.  Nich- 
ols and  G.  F.  Hull.J  Prof.  Crookes,  however,  estimated  the 
pressure  of  sunshine  at  57  tons  per  square  mile,  or  about 
three  thousand  millions  of  tons  upon  the  whole  Earth.  § 

Prof.  Arthur  Schuster  describes  this  pressure  as  a  prop- 
agation of  momentum  accompanying  the  transmission  of 
light,  and  states  that  this  momentum  is  destroyed  whether  the 
molecules  upon  which  the  light  falls  act  as  absorbing,  or  as 
scattering  centers.  || 

Now  if  the  pressure  of  sunshine  is  a  fact,  and  actual  ex- 
periments appear  to  prove  it,  what  are  we  to  think  of  the 
theory  of  gravitation,  which  has  been  built  up  without  the 
least  regard  to  it? 

26.  The  Gravitational  Strain  of  a  Revolving  Planet. — It 
is  stated  by  Sir  Oliver  Lodge  §§  that  the  force  with  which  the 
Moon  is  held  in  its  terrestial  orbit  would  be  great  enough 
to  tear  asunder  a  steel  rod  400  miles  thick  with  a  tenacity 
of  thirty  tons  per  square  inch.  The  present  writer  ques- 
tioned this  conclusion,  asserting  the  sufficiency  of  a  rod 

*0utlines  of  Astronomy,  p.  412. 
tSmith.  Kept.  1902.  pp.  177-8. 
ISmith.  Eept.  1908,  pp.  115-138. 

iGravitation,    by   Wm.   B.   Taylor,    from   Smith.   Kept.    1876. 
IINature,   81,   98. 

§§0n  the  Ether  of  Space,  ,1  lecture  at  the  Royal  Institution,  London, 
Feb.  21,  '08. 


32  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  L26 

6.5  miles  in  diameter,  instead  of  400.*  The  former  estimate 
is  based  on  the  theory  that  it  is  the  mass  of  the  revolving 
body  that  determines  the  strain  upon  the  restraining  rod, 
the  latter  on  the  theory  that  it  is  the  weight  of  the  revolv- 
ing body  that  determines  this  strain.  Briefly  expressed,  it  is 
MV2  versus  WV2;  and  though  the  latter  formula,  owing  to 
its  novelty  and  contravention  of  accepted  views,  may  seem 
preposterous  at  first,  it  is  not  at  all  without  evidence  to 
support  it. 

The  mass  of  a  body  is  generally  considered  to  be  invar- 
iable wherever  placed;  but  its  weight  depends  entirely  upon 
its  circumstances.  If  the  strain  upon  the  Moon's  retaining 
rod  be  determined  by  the  Moon's  mass,  then  that  strain  will 
be  3600  times  as  great  as  it  would  be  if  it  were  determined 
by  the  weight  of  the  Moon  at  the  Moon's  distance,  as  com- 
pared with  its  weight  upon  the  Earth.  This  is  a  question 
regarding  the  strength  of  gravity  which  it  seems  worth  while 
to  solve  if  we  can;  and  more  especially  as  it  appears  to  be 
a  matter  of  immense  significance  in  the  future  stages  of 
cosmical  evolution,  as  glimpsed  in  the  almost  inconceivable 
orbital  velocities  implied  in  the  molecules  of  radiant  matter. 
(See  Art.  198).  , 

At  the  Earth's  surface,  weight  is  primarily  used  to  de- 
termine mass,  or  quantity  of  matter.  If  a  body  weighs  so 
much,  we  say  it  contains  so  much  substance:  if  it  weighs 
half  as  much,  the  substance  it  contains  is  only  half  as  much; 
and  so  on.  Work  done  is  also  based  on  weight.  If  we  raise 
a  pound  weight  one  foot,  we  use  one  "foot-pound"  as  a  meas- 
ure of  the  energy  expended. 

Now  at  the  Earth's  surface,  let  us  swing  a  pound  weight 
vertically  in  a  sling  three  feet  long.  Then,  from  the  lower- 
most point  of  the  swing  to  the  uppermost  point,  the  pound 
weight  has  been  raised  6  feet;  implying  an  amount  of  work 
done,  or  strain  on  the  string,  of  6  foot-pounds.  Then  if 
we  similarly  swing  the  same  body  in  the  same  sling,  through 
the  same  angle,  1600  miles  above  the  Earth's  surface,  that 

*Nature,  80,  276. 


26]  THE   LAW   OF   GRAVITATION  33 

body  will  weigh  only  half  a  pound,  owing  to  the  increased 
distance  from  the  Earth;  and  the  work  done  by,  and  con- 
sequently the  tension  on,  the  string  will  be  only  a  half  pound 
multiplied  by  6  feet,  or  3  foot-pounds.  The  body  in  the  sling 
is  raised  against  gravity  in  both  cases;  but  the  lessened 
work  in  raising  it  at  the  higher  elevation  necessarily  implies 
a  diminished  strain  upon  the  string. 

Again,  let  a  pound  ball  revolve  at  the  end  of  a  string  4.5 
feet  long  on  a  horizontal  plane  at  the  Earth's  surface,  with 
a  velocity  of  3  feet  per  second.  This  implies  that  the  ball 
is  drawn  from  the  tangent  to  its  momentary  path  a  distance 
of  1  foot  in  each  second;  and  this  foot-pound  movement  rep- 
resents the  work  or  strain  which  the  string  withstands  each 
second  owing  to  the  revolution  of  the  ball  in  the  sling.  Let 
the  same  ball  in  the  same  sling  be  revolved  on  a  horizontal 
solid  plane  with  the  same  velocity  1600  miles  above  the 
Earth's  surface.  Then  the  ball  will  weigh  only  half  a  pound. 
This  half  pound  will  be  drawn  from  the  tangent  to  its  mo- 
mentary path  1  foot  in  each  second,  and — why  should  not 
this  half-foot  pound  movement  represent  the  strain  which 
the  string  withstands  each  second  owing  to  the  revolution 
of  the  ball  in  the  sling,  in  a  manner  exactly  similar  to  the 
first  case?  In  fact,  will  not  a  spring  balance  placed  as  a 
link  in  the  spring  register  just  half  the  strain  in  the  latter 
case  as  in  the  former? 

By  the  same  reasoning,  weight  also  affects  inertia.  If 
a  man  and  a  cannon-ball  were  removed  to  a  place  where  the 
cannon-ball  weighed  no  more  than  a  feather  does  at  the 
Earth's  surface,  will  not  the  man's  strength  be  less  taxed 
to  raise  the  ball  than  it  would  be  to  raise  it  where  it  weigh- 
ed 100  pounds?  The  man's  strength,  like  that  of  a  spring 
balance,  remains  the  same,  and  it  is  only  plain  common  sense 
that  a  man's  strength  will  accomplish  most  where  it  is  re- 
sisted least  by  the  forces  of  Nature.  If  a  man  were  carried 
to  the  Moon,  could  he  not  jump  higher  than  on  the  Earth? 
or,  if  carried  to  the  Sun,  could  he  jump  as  high  as  here? 
And  why  should  not  change  of  weight  similarly  affect  the 


34  OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    THEORY   OF    GRAVITATION  [26 

strain  suffered  by  the  string,  or  bond,  holding  the  Moon  in 
its  orbit? 

Prof.  Young  states*  "The  attraction  of  the  sun  for  the 
earth  expressed  as  tons  of  force  (»ot  tons  of  mass  of  course) 
is  3,600,000  of  millions  of  millions  of  tons  (36  with  seventeen 
ciphers  annexed)".  Now  how  did  Prof.  Young  obtain  this 
result?  He  took  the  Earth's  6X1021  tons  of  weight  over 
to  the  Sun's  surface  (about  440,000  miles  from  the  Sun's 
center),  where  he  multiplied  it  by  27.5,  the  ratio  of  grav- 
ity upon  the  Sun  to  gravity  upon  the  Earth,  making  the 
Earth's  weight  there  165  XlO21  tons,  where  it  would  require 
a  velocity  of  270  miles  per  second  to  balance  the  solar  grav- 
ity of  444  feet  in  one  second.  So  in  removing  the  Earth  to 
its  solar  orbit,  92,000,000  miles  away  from  the  Sun,  where 
the  velocity  is  about  19  miles  per  second,  to  obtain  the  at- 
tractive strain  there  he  had  to  dimmish  165 XlO21  tons  by 
(19/270)2  owing  to  change  of  velocity  and  by  440,000/92,- 
000,000  owing  to  change  of  distance;  which  gave  him  about 
36 XlO17  tons,  just  as  he  states.  Now  in  taking  the  Earth 
over  to  the  Sun's  surface,  he  did  not  forget  at  all  to  increase 
the  Earth's  weight  to  correspond  with  the  greater  solar  grav- 
ity existing  there;  but  when  he  removed  the  Earth  back 
again  to  its  solar  orbit,  he  forgot  entirely  to  diminish  the 
Earth's  weight  to  correspond  with  the  smaller  solar  gravity 
there,  modifying  it  with  regard  to  change  of  velocity  and 
distance  alone;  although  the  orbital  strain  is  certainly  mod- 
ified by  weight  just  as  well  as  it  is  by  distance  and  velocity. 
This  may  not  be  the  exact  method  employed  by  Young  to  de- 
termine the  Earth's  gravitative  strain  in  its  solar  orbit; 
but  it  must  be  equivalent  to  it  because  it  arrives  at  the 
same  result.  Why  did  Prof.  Young  allow  for  the  change  of 
the  Earth's  weight  in  the  one  case  and  not  the  other ?t 

A  more  general  application  of  the  theory  of  gravitation 
to  the  case  of  a  simple  unit  of  the  Solar  System,  consisting 
of  three  bodies,  may  next  be  considered.  Though  neces- 
sarily involving  a  great  deal  of  detail  and  apparently  a  rath- 

*Gen  Astron.,  Art.  436. 

tSee   also   Arts.    198,    211,    218,    238,    249e. 


26]  THE    PROBLEM    OF    THREE    BODIES  35 

er  complex  problem,  only  the  simplest  mechanical  princi- 
ples are  really  involved,  and  all  of  it  seems  easily  within  the 
comprehension  of  the  average  high  school  graduate. 


CHAPTER  II 
THE  PROBLEM  OF  THREE  BODIES 


It  is  questionable  whether  it  can  be  safely  said  that  the 
motion  of  the  moon  cannot  be  completely  accounted  for  by 
the  law  of  gravity.  .  .  .  We  cannot  fully  explain  these 
motions  by  Newton's  law  of  gravity. — ORMOND  STONE. 

You  state  that  I  have  misinterpreted  my  results,  and  it 
looks  as  though  you  believe  my  views  to  be  unsound.  Your 
arguments  are  those  of  an  eminent  scholar.  For  years  1 
po|ndered,  so  TO  speak,  day  and  night  over  books,  and  filled 
my  head  with  sound  views — very  sound  ones  indeed — those 
of  others.  But  I  could  not  get  to  practical  results.  1  then 
began  to  work  and  think  independently.  Gradually  my  views 
became  unsound,  but  they  conducted  me  to  sound  results. 

— NIKOLA  TESLA. 

There  is  growing  to  be  an  unspoken,  rather  than  a  clear- 
ly formulated  admission,  that  we  know  little  of  the  order  of 
nature,  and  nothing  at  all  of  the  "laws"  of  nature.  .  .  . 
'If  any  opinion,'  says  Priestly,  'in  all  the  modern  doctrine  con- 
cerning air  be  well  .founded,  it  is  certainly  this,  that  nitrous 
air  is  highly  charged  with  phlogiston.  If  I  have  completely 
ascertained  anything  at  all  relating  toi  air,  it  is  this.'  .  .  . 
Those  who  are  capable  of  being  instructed  or  warned  by  the 
history  of  human  thought  may,  then,  ask  what  kind  of  a  guar- 
antee are  we  to  have  for  any  other  'fact'  of  our  new  knowl- 
edge. May  not  all  these  'facts'  be  gone  like  the  baseless  fab- 
ric of  this  vision  before  another  hundred  years  are  passed? 
.  .  .  The  lesson  for  us  is  that  we  must  not  consider  that 
anything  is  absolutely  settled  or  true.  .  .  How  many  doc- 
trines of  our  own  day  will  stand  the  light  of  the  next  cen- 
tury? .  .  .  But  let  me  repeat  what  I  have  said  elsewhere, 
that  the  truths  of  the  scientific  church  are  not  dogmas,  but 
something  put  forward  as  provisional  only,  and  which  her  most 
faithful  children  are  welcome  to  disprove  if  they  can.  Re- 
member it  is  the  same  human  nature  which  judged  that  evi- 


36  OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    THEORY    OF   GRAVITATION  [27 

dence  then  that  judges  this  evidence  now,  and  remember  that, 
however  rapidly  science  changes,  human  nature  remains  very 
much  the  same,  and  has  always  u  good  conceit  of  itself. 

— PKOF.    S.    P.   WANGLE Y. 

27.  Data    of   the    Problem. — The   most   familiar   instance 
of  the  problem  of  three  bodies  is  that  of  the  Earth,  the  Sun, 
and  the  Moon.     Let  us  consider  this  celebrated  problem  once 
more   using   these   bodies   for   a    special    case.     For   brevity, 
the  Earth,  the  Sun,  and  the  Moon  may  be  designated  by  their 
initial  letters,  E,  S  and  M,  respectively;  also  E  will  be  taken 
at  its  mean  distance,  or  about  92,000,000  miles  from  S,  and 
M  at  a  point  between  full  and  new  Moon  54°  44'  distant  from 
the  latter  and  at  its  mean  distance,  or  about  240,000  miles 
from  E;   with  the  apogee  of  the  lunar  orbit  at,  or  nearly  at, 
new  Moon.     The  object  of  taking  M  at  the  given  point  of  its 
orbit  around  E  is'  that,  at  this  point,  the  perturbing  forces 
upon  M  are  supposed  to  be  balanced,  are,  in  fact,  said  to  be 
tangential  to  the  orbit,  so  that  the  latter  body  has  no  ten- 
dency   to    recede    from,    or    approach    towards,    its    primary. 
According  to   Sir  John   Herschel  the   distance   of  the   given 
point  from  new   Moon   is   64°  14',*    but   Prof.   R.   A.    Proctor 
maintains  that  the  balancement  takes  place  at  the  point  first 
given f;  and  this  point  is  selected  here  briefly  because  it  is 
the  less  favorable  to  the  purpose  here  to  be  served.     At  the 
given  point,  M  would  be  some  140,000  miles  nearer  to  S  than 
E   is,   and,    taking   the   Moon's    apogeeal    distance   from    the 
Earth  at  about  259,000  miles $,  M  will  yet  approach  S  about 
119,000  miles   before  it  reaches   syzygy,  the  point  at  which 
it   is   called   new   Moon.     And   as    the   synodic    period   of   M 
around  E  is  about  29.5  days,  the  time  required  to  traverse 
the    arc    of    54°  44'    will    be    about    4.5    days,    and    therefore 
the  average  approach  per  second  of  M  towards  S  between 
the   given  point  and  the  apogeeal   point  at   syzygy  will   be 
119,000/4.5X24x60X60,  or  about  0.3  mile. 

28.  Perturbation  of  the  Moon's  Motion  Owing  to  the  Sun's 

*Outliites  cf  Astronomy,  Art.   676. 

tThe   Moon,    p.    81,    Note. 

JNewcomVs  Popular  Astronomy,   p.   312. 


28]  THE    PROBLEM    OF    THREE    BODIES  37 

Distance-Variation. — Now  at  the  given  point  we  may  read- 
ily find,  according  to  the  law  of  gravitation,  that  the  force 
of  the  attraction  of  S  upon  M  will  be  of  such  value  as  to 
cause  the  latter  to  fall  towards  S  a  distance  of  about  0.01 
ft.  in  one  second.  But  since  at  the  given  point  the  radial 
forces  upon  M  are  supposed  to  be  balanced,  we  may  assume 
that  this  attraction  of  S  upon  M  is  wholly  antagonized  by 
the  centrifugal  force  of  the  latter  in  its  solar  orbit.  At  the 
end  of  the  first  second  after  leaving  the  given  point,  how- 
ever, M  will  have  approached  S  a  distance  of  0.3  mile; 
and  consequently,  by  the  law  of  gravitation,  the  attraction 
of  S  upon  M  will  be  greater  than  0.01  ft.  in  one  second 
by  a  quantity  x,  as  indicated  in  the  following  proportion: 

(91,860,000-0.3)2  :  (91,860,000)2  ==  0.01  :  0.01  +  x; 
from  which  the  value  of  x  is  found  to  be  about  6X10-11  ft. 
At  the  end  of  the  second  second,  the  approach  of  M  towards 
S  would  be  twice  as  great,  or  0.6  mile,  and  consequently  x, 
or  the  incrcease  of  the  attraction  of  S,  would  be  twice  as 
great,  or  12XlO-nft.  And  so  on.  The  increase  of  attrac- 
tion in  the  first  second,  if  not  counteracted,  would  obviously 
urge  M  at  the  same  rate  in  all  subsequent  seconds;  and 
similarly  with  the  increment  of  attraction  in  the  second, 
third,  etc.,  second;  so  that  the  rate  of  fall  of  M  towards 
S  in  any  second  owing  to  these  momentary  increments  of 
solar  attraction  upon  M  would  be  equal  to  the  sum  of  all 
the  falls  in  that  and  the  preceding  seconds  up  to  the  start- 
ing point.  Thus, 

In  the  1st  second,  the  fall  is  6X10-11  ft. 

In  the  2nd  second,  the  fall  is   (12+  6)X10-1X  ft. 

In  the  3rd  second,  the  fall  is   (18+18)  X10-11  ft. 

In  the  4th  second,  the  fall  is   (24+36)  X10-11  ft. 

In  the  5th  second,  the  fall  is   (30+60)  X10-"  ft. 


In  the  388800th  second,  the  fall  is          41/&  ft. 

Now  since  the  orbital  forces  are  balanced  upon  M  at 
the  given  starting  point,  so  that  it  has  no  tendency  to  recede 
from,  or  approach  towards,  E,  the  foregoing  series  of  mo- 
mentary increments  of  solar  attraction  obviously  constitute  a 
perturbing  force  pulling  M  away  from  E  towards  S;  and  we 
see  that,  if  left  to  itself,  the  effect  of  this  perturbing-  force 


38  OBJECTIONS   TO   THE   THEORY   OF   GRAVITATION  [29 

for  the  4.5  days,  or  388,800  seconds,  during  which  M  moves 
from  the  given  point  to  the  apogeeal  point  at  new  Moon,  is 
such  as  to  generate  a  velocity  of  M  directly  toward  S  of  not 
less  than  4.5  feet  per  second  at  the  latter  point;  which  is 
more  than  a  thousand  times  greater  at  that  point  than  the 
effect  of  E's  restraining  attraction  in  the  same  time.  There- 
fore, unless  some  other  equal  and  opposite  perturbing  force, 
or  forces,  are  generated  at  the  same  time,  it  is  very  obvious 
that,  in  accordance  with  the  theory  of  gravitation,  M  would 
be  carried  rapidly  inwards  to  S,  instead  of  actually  away  from 
S  to  the  opposite  side  of  E.  Let  us  inquire,  then,  what  other 
perturbing  forces  upon  M  can  possibly  arise  between  the  two 
points  in  accordance  with  the  present  theory. 

Starting  from  a  point  where  the  radial  forces  are  in  equil- 
ibrium, as  in  the  present  instance,  there  are  only  two  classes 
of  perturbing  forces  that  can  possibly  arise  as  the  revolving 
body  leaves  that  point,  namely,  those  arising  from  variations 
of  distances  from  attracting  centers  and  those  arising  from 
variations  of  orbital  velocity  around  these  centers.  Now 
there  are  only  two  attracting  centers  concerned  in  this  prob- 
lem, or  E  and  S;  and  these  two  give  rise  therefore  to  four 
perturbing  forces  upon  M,  and  no  more.  These  perturbing 
forces  are  (1)  that  due  to  the  distance-variation  of  M  from 
S,  (2)  that  due  to  the  distance-variation  of  M  from  E,  (3) 
that  due  to  velocity-variation  of  M  around  S,  and  (4)  that  due 
to  velocity-variation  of  M  around  E.  The  first  of  these  has 
just  been  determined;  we  may  now  proceed  to  discuss  the 
others. 

29.  Perturbation  of  the  Moon's  Motion  Owing  to  the 
Earth's  Distance-Variation. — It  has  already  been  stated  that 
at  the  first  given  point  of  M's  orbit,  that  body  is  at  its  mean 
distance,  or  240,000  miles,  from  E,  at  which  the  value  of  E's 
attraction  is  about  0.0044  feet  per  second;  and  that  at  the 
second  given  point,  or  the  apogee  of  M's  orbit  at  new  Moon, 
the  distance  of  M  from  E  is  259,000  miles.  Between  the 
two  points,  therefore,  M  has  receded  from  E,  owing  to  the 
tangential  perturbing  force,  as  already  mentioned,  a  distance 
of  19,000  miles,  or  about  0.049  mile  per  second;  and  it  follows 


30]  THE    PROBLEM    OF    THREE    BODIES  39 

that,  in  every  second  after  leaving  the  given  point,  E's  at- 
traction upon  M  would  become  less  and  less  owing  to  this 
increase  of  the  distance  at  which  it  acts.  To  find  this  dim- 
inution of  E's  attraction  in  the  first  second,  we  have  the 
following  proportion,  similar  to  that  of  the  preceding  article: 

(240,000+.049)2  :  (240,000)2  =  0.0044  :  0.0044-x; 
where  x  is  found  to  be  17XlO-10ft.  In  the  second  second 
the  recession  being  twice  as  great,  x  would  be  twice  as  great, 
or  34XlO-10ft.  In  tht  third  second  the  recession  would  be 
three  times  as  great,  and  x  would  therefore  be  51X10-10  ft. 
And  so  on.  These  diminutions  of  E's  attraction  upon  M 
would  obviously  cause  corresponding  excesses  of  M's  cen- 
trifugal force  around  E,  which  consequently  would  urge  M 
away  from  E  and  towards  S.  In  the  first  second,  the  excess 
would  urge  M  away  from  E  a  distance  of  17XlO-10ft.,  at 
which  rate  it  would,  of  course,  keep  moving  in  each  subse- 
quent second,  if  not  prevented  by  some  other  cause.  In  the 
second  second  M  would  be  urged  a  distance  of  34X10-10  ft., 
which,  like  the  first,  and  every  succeeding  impulse,  would 
also  continue  through  subsequent  seconds.  So  that  the  total 
fall  in  any  second,  owing  to  these  series  of  impulsions,  would 
thus  have  a  common  difference  of  the  second  order  of 
17XlO-10ft.;  according  to  which  the  fall  in  the  last  second 
owing  to  this  series  is  about  (388800) 2  X  17XlO-10/2,  or 
128  ft. 

30.  Perturbation  of  the  Moon's  Motion  Owing  to  Varia- 
tion of  Its  Velocity  Around  the  Sun. — The  two  series  of  per- 
turbing forces  arising  from  distance-variation  being  thus 
found  to  act  in  unison,  we  turn  to  the  perturbing  forces 
which  may  be  due  to  variations  of  velocity.  We  may  first 
consider  those  due  to  such  variation  around  S.  As  M  leaves 
the  given  point,  it  moves  inwards  to  S,  and  also  its  motion 
around  E  is  opposite  in  direction  to  its  motion  around  S, 
and  the  latter  is  therefore  diminished  by  a  very  considerable 
portion  of  the  former.  The  mean  velocity  of  M  around  S 
is  about  18.3  miles  per  second.  If  the  velocity  is  variable 
and  the  distance  constant,  the  centrifugal  force  varies  di- 


40  OBJECTIONS   TO   THE   THEORY   OF   GRAVITATION  [30 

rectly  as  the  square  of  the  velocity  and  inversely  as  the  dis- 
tance. At  the  given  starting  point,  M  is  some  190,000  miles 
in  advance  of  E  in  its  solar  orbit,  and  4.5  days,  or  388,800 
seconds,  afterwards,  M  is  exactly  between  E  and  S.  This 
would  involve  a  diminution  of  M's  velocity  around  S  of  near- 
ly 0.5  mile  per  second.  But  M's  velocity  has  been  diminish- 
ing ever  since  last  quarter.  This  last  point  is  in  advance 
of  the  given  point  with  respect  to  M's  solar  orbit,  about  50,- 
000  miles;  and  it  required  about.  250,000  seconds  for  M  to 
move  from  last  quarter  to  that  point;  which  involves  a  dim- 
inution of  velocity  of  about  0.2  mile  per  second  before  the 
given  point  was  reached.  This  reduction  of  velocity  pre- 
ceding the  arrival  at  the  given  point,  was  presumably  one 
of  the  circumstance  required  for  the  equilibrium  of  the  radial 
orbital  forces  at  that  point;  and  it  is  necessary  therefore  to 
deduct  it  from  the  rate  of  reduction  after  the  given  point 
was  passed  in  order  to  compare  M's  velocity  at  that  point 
with  its  subsequent  velocity.  Deducting  0.2  mile  from  0.49 
mile  leaves  0.29  mile,  which  is  the  comparative  rate  of  dim- 
inution after  leaving  the  given  point.  Now  since  M's  actual 
velocity  at  that  point  is  some  18.3  miles  per  second,  then 
to  find  the  diminution  of  M's  centrifugal  force  around  S  cor- 
responding to  this  diminution  of  velocity  we  have  the  follow- 
ing proportion: 

(18.3)2/91,860,000   :    (18.3-0.29)2/  (91,860,000—0.3)  = 
0.01   :   0.01-x; 

whence  x  is  found  to  be  0.0003  ft.  And  since  the  diminution 
of  velocity  in  each  second  after  leaving  the  given  point  is 
about  the  same,  and  that  of  the  distance  from  S  at  all  times 
comparatively  inconsiderable,  the  diminution  of  the  centrifu- 
gal force  around  S  in  each  subsequent  second  will  also  be 
about  the  same.  Now  the  diminution  of  M's  centrifugal 
force  around  S  obviously  leaves  an  equivalent  portion  of  the 
attraction  of  S  in  excess  upon  M  in  each  second,  which,  like 
the  other  perturbing  forces,  would  of  course  draw  M  away 
from  E  and  towards  S.  In  each  second  the  pull  in  this  di- 
rection is  0.0003  ft.,  which,  as  in  the  other  series,  is  effective 


32]  THE    PROBLEM    OF    THREE    BODIES  41 

also  in  all  subsequent  seconds.     And  therefore  the  rate  of 
fall  in  the  last  second  is  0.0003  ft.   X   388,000,  or  116  ft. 

31.  Perturbation   of  the    Moon's    Motion   Owing  to   Varia- 
tion of  Its  Velocity  Around  the   Earth. — There  now  remains 
to    consider   only   the   variation    of    M's    velocity    around    E. 
Since  all  the  perturbing  forces  already  determined  tend  to 
draw  M  towards  $,  that  is,  somewbat  indirectly  in  the  di- 
rection of  M's   orbital  motion  around  E   in  the   period   con- 
sidered, it  is  obvious  that  the  velocity  of  that  motion  would 
gradually  increase  for  this  reason  after  M  leaves  the  given 
point.     This  would   evidently  increase  M's   centrifugal  force 
around  "E  and  the  increase  of  this  force  would  constitute  a 
perturbing  force  which,  between  the  given  points,  would  also 
urge  M  towards   S   and  therefore  in  unison  with  the  other 
perturbing  forces. 

32.  Back-Action   of  the    Earth's  Attraction. — But  there  is 
one   circumstance  which,   it  is   alleged,   would   diminish   M's 
velocity  around  E  between  the  given  points.     At  the  start- 
ing point,  the  distance  between  the  two  bodies  was  stated 
to  be  about  240,000   miles,   while   at  new  Moon,   where  the 
apogee  of  M's  orbit  is  assumed  to  be  situated,  the  distance 
between  the  two  bodies  is  259,000  miles.     Between  the  two 
points,  therefore,  M  recedes  from  E  a  distance  of  19,000  miles. 
In  consequence  of  this  the  orbital  motion  of  the  former  is 
somewhat  oblique  to  the  direction  of  E's  attraction,  instead 
of  at  right  angles  to  it,  so  that  a  portion  of  E's  attraction  is 
thus  brought  to  act  in  opposition  to  M's  motion,  and  the  latter 
is   consequently  diminished. 

In  a  pretty  thorough  discussion  of  this  problem  some 
thirty-five  years  ago,  between  the  present  writer,  and  a  Pro- 
fessor of  the  Mass.  Institute  of  Technology,  this  was  the 
sole  cause  assigned  by  the  latter  to  maintain  the  Moon's  po- 
sition against  the  perturbing  forces  acting  upon  it. 

It  is  true  that  the  actual  motion  of  M  around  E  is  dimin- 
ished between  the  given  point  and  new  Moon.  But  that  is 
not  the  question.  The  problem  is — How  is  this  decrease 
of  M's  velocity  compatible  with  the  theory  of  gravitation? 

The  radial  components  of  M's  orbital  forces  were  just  bal- 


42  OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    THEORY   OF    GRAVITATION  [33 

anced  at  the  given  point.  But  immediately  after  passing  that 
point,  according  to  the  theory  of  gravitation,  several  perturb- 
ing forces  are  seen  to  arise,  which  t«nd  to  increase  M's  ve- 
locity instead  of  to  diminish  it;  and  the  farther  M  moves 
beyond  the  said  point  towards  new  Moon,  and  the  farther  it 
recedes  from  E,  the  stronger  these  forces  become,  and  con- 
sequently, the  greater  would  become  M's  velocity  around  E. 
The  recession  of  M  during  any  second  after  passing  the 
given  starting  point  can  not  possibly  occasion  a  diminution 
of  M's  velocity  around  E;  but  would,  on  the  contrary,  nec- 
essarilly  imply  an  acceleration  of  that  velocity  and  consequent 
increase  of  M's  centrifugal  force.  The  ground  for  this  con- 
clusion is  that,  in  the  absence  of  recession,  M's  path  would 
be  at  right  angles  to  E's  attraction.  A  perturbing  force 
then  acts  upon  M,  causing  it  to  recede  from  its  rectangular 
path.  This  external  perturbing  force  acts  with  the  force 
that  maintains  M's  velocity,  and  not  in  any  degree  against 
that  force;  therefore,  the  former  cannot  possibly  diminish 
the  latter.  And  moreover,  the  perturbing  force  causing  the 
recession  is  clearly  more  powerful  than  any  internal  or  op- 
posing force,  because,  in  spite  of  the  latter  the  perturbing 
force  causes  M  to  recede,  thus  asserting  its  superiority.  It 
is  therefore  absurd  to  suppose  that  any  body  urged  by  two 
forces  in  the  same  direction  will  move  with  a  less  velocity 
than  when  the  body  is  acted  on  by  one'  of  the  forces  only. 
And  this  argument  applies,  not  to  any  particular  second  or 
number  of  seconds,  but  obviously  to  every  second  during 
which  recession  takes  place. 

There  is,  therefore,  no  rational  theoretic  ground  for  grav- 
itative  back-action  in  this  case,  for  the  theory  not  only  ab- 
solutely precludes  such  action,  but  furnishes  instead  several 
powerful  opposite,  or  front  actions. 

33.  Front-Action  of  the  Sun. — In  fact  this  back-action  is 
only  a  part  of  the  theory  of  such  actions.  After  M  passes 
new  Moon,  its  path  in  reality  begins  to  incline  forwards 
towards  E's  attraction;  and  the  latter,  acting  indirectly  in 
the  direction  of  M's  motion,  is  theoretically  supposed  to  ac- 
celerate M's  motion,  the  same  as  before  new  Moon  it  was 


34]  THE   PROBLEM   OF   THREE   BODIES  43 

supposed  to  retard  it.  So  that,  by  the  theory,  front-action 
is  just  as  effective  as  back-action. 

Now  between  the  given  point  and  new  Moon,  there  would 
not  only  be  a  theoretic  back  action,  but  also  a  theoretic  front 
action,  both  at  the  same  time.  The  front  action  is  chat  of 
S,  towards  the  direction  of  whose  attraction  M's  path  is  in- 
clined even  more  than  that  path  is  inclined  from  the  di- 
rection of  E's  attraction;  and  moreover  the  attraction  of  S 
is  more  than  twice  as  powerful  as  that  of  E  between  the  giv- 
en points.  So  that,  if  such  actions  were  applicable  to  the 
case,  the  front  action  of  S  would  far  more  than  counter-bal- 
ance the  back  action  of  E.  It  is  true  that  the  attraction  of 
S  is  opposed  and  nearly  balanced  by  M's  centrifugal  force 
around  S,  but  exactly  the  same  thing  happens  in  the  other 
case;  E's  attraction  on  M  being  opposed  and  fully  balanced 
by  M's  centrifugal  force  around  E.  It  is  therefore  wholly 
unnecessary  and  superfluous  to  consider  here  thjs  back  ac- 
tion more  in  detail,  for  it  is  quite  apparent  that,  if  such  ac- 
tion could  possibly  operate  in  the  given  case  consistently  with 
the  given  theory,  it  would  furnish  a  far  more  powerful  force, 
aside  from  the  other  perturbing  forces,  to  draw  M  away  from 
E  rather  than  towards  it,  and  so  to  conspire  with  the  per- 
turbing forces  already  considered. 

34.  Direct  Contradiction  of  the  Theory  by  the  Facts. — 
From  all  points  of  view,  then,  we  find  that,  according  to  the 
theory  of  gravitation,  apparently  all  of  the  perturbing  forces 
upon  the  Moon,  in  the  given  case,  tend  to  draw  that  body 
away  from  the  Earth  and  towards  the  Sun;  which  tendency 
rapidly  increases  as  new  Moon,  or  the  apogeeal  point,  is 
approached.  At  the  given  starting  point  the  orbital  forces 
upon  the  Moon  around  the  Earth  are  so  adjusted  that  there 
is  no  perturbing  force  whatever,  tending  to  draw  the  latter 
either  from,  or  towards,  the  former.  Prof.  Proctor  says  that 
at  the  given  point  the  perturbing  force  is  wholly  tangential, 
i.  e.,  tending  to  draw  the  Moon  along  the  tangent  to  its 
orbit  around  the  Earth,  and  therefore  in  a  direction  at  right 
angles  to  that  of  the  Earth's  attraction.  The  Moon  is  also 
assumed  to  be  at  its  mean  distance  from  the  Earth  at  this 


44  OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    THEORY   OF   GRAVITATION  [35 

point,  so  that  the  Earth's  attraction  and  the  Moon's  cen- 
trifugal force  are  about  balanced.  In  fact  we  know  that  at 
the  given  point  the  orbital  forces  upon  the  Moon  at  least 
do  not  urge  that  body  towards  the  .Earth,  because  we  actu- 
ally observe  that  the  Moon  moves  away  from  the  Earth  af- 
ter leaving  the  given  point.  Now  after  leaving  the  given 
point,  new  perturbing  forces  are  seen  to  arise,  which  would 
urge  the  Moon  away  from  the  Earth;  and  these  forces  con- 
tinually increase  in  amount  as  the  Moon's  distance  from 
the  point  increases,  until  at  new  Moon  these  perturbing 
forces  become  thousands  of  times  more  powerful  than  all 
other  orbital  forces  upon  the  Moon  combined.  Therefore, 
unless  there  should  exist  some  perturbing  force  or  forces 
which  would  all  along  counteract  these  perturbing  forces 
so  as  to  prevent  them  from  getting  such  headway,  it  is 
manifest  that  the  Moon's  motion  according  to  the  theory  of 
gravitation,  would  be  little  better  ordered  than  those  of  the 
moon  of  Mr.  Artemus  Ward.  Yet,  after  a  diligent  search 
for  such  perturbing  forces  in  every  conceivable  quarter,  there 
has  been  found  instead  only  still  greater  and  more  powerful 
forces  conspiring  to  derange  the  Moon's  motions  still  more. 
So  that  the  returning  of  the  Moon  backwards  around  the 
Earth  and  from  the  Sun,  which  we  actually  observe  to  take 
place,  would  be  a  physical  impossibility  in  accordance  with 
that  theory. 

35.  Possibility  of  the  Given  Case. — In  concluding  tne 
discussion  of  this  problem  a  few  words  may  be  said  regarding 
the  possibility  of  the  given  case.  It  is,  of  course,  a  well 
known  fact  that  the  apogee  of  the  Moon's  orbit  is  not  a  fixed 
point,  with  respect  to  the  Earth  or  to  the  Sun,  but  a  point 
which  itself  moves  around  in  the  orbit,  although  more  slowly 
than  the  Moon.  Its  rate  of  motion  is,  in  fact,  nearly  41°  per 
annum;  so  that  the  periods  between  successive  conjunctions 
of  apogee  with  the  Sun  is  about  nine  years.*  During  every 
such  period,  then,  the  apogeeal  point  moves  slowly  from  new 
Moon  around  through  every  point  of  the  Moon's  synodic  or- 
bit back  again  to  new  Moon.  If  further  evidence  were  nec- 

*Herschel's  Outlines  of  Astronomy,  p.   266. 


36]  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THREE  BODIES  45 

essary  to  show  that  the  apogeeal  point  may  lie  at  new  Moon, 
we  have  it  in  the  fact  of  annular  eclipses  of  the  Sun.  Solar 
eclipses  happen  at  new  Moon;  and  ordinarily  the  distance 
of  the  latter  from  the  Earth  is  such  that  the  Moon's  disc 
will  totally  cover  and  hide  the  Sun  from  the  view  of  an  ob- 
server in  the  line  of  the  Moon's  shadow.  But  when  the 
apogee  of  the  Moon's  orbit  is  at  new  Moon,  and  the  conditions 
are  such  that  the  latter  will  pass  over  the  Sun's  disc  at  that 
time,  the  distance  of  the  Moon  from  the  Earth  is  so  great 
that  only  the  central  portion  of  that  disc  will  be  covered  by 
the  Moon  and  the  outer  portion  of  the  rim  of  the  Sun  will 
be  visible  all  around  the  lunar  disc;  whence  the  name,  an- 
nular eclipse.  Those  annular  eclipses  prove,  therefore, 
that  the  Moon's  apogee,  or  point  of  greatest  distance  from 
the  Earth,  occasionally  lies  at  new  Moon,  as  has  been  assum- 
ed in  the  given  case,  because  it  is  only  the  Moon's  greatest 
distance  at  new  Moon  that  can  cause  such  eclipses.  This 
and  the  balancement  of  the  orbital  forces  upon  the  Moon  at 
the  given  starting  point  are  the  essential  points  of  the  case. 
The  given  distance  of  the  Moon  at  that  point  is  not  an  essen- 
tial element;  as  any  other  possible  distance  at  that  point 
would  not  appreciably  change  the  results  obtained. 

As  to  the  equilibrium  of  the  orbital  forces  at  the  given 
point,  it  may  be  stated  here  that  only  the  normal  components 
of  the  perturbing  forces  upon  the  Moon,  that  is,  those  com- 
ponents which  cause  the  Moon  to  recede  from,  or  approach 
towards,  the  Earth  are  said  to  be  balanced  at  that  point. 
The  tangential  components  of  the  perturbing  forces,  that  is, 
the  components  which  retard  or  accelerate  the  Moon's  motion 
around  the  Earth,  are  stated  by  both  Herschel  and  Proctor 
to  be  nearly  at  a  maximum  at  that  point.  It  is  very  mani- 
fest, however,  that  this  condition  of  things  is  by  no  means 
unfavorable  to  the  conclusions  here  arrived  at. 

36.  Previous  Discussions  of  the  Problem. — It  may  appear 
strange  to  the  reader  that  no  computation  of  the  perturb- 
ing forces  upon  the  Moon  by  other  authorities  has  here  been 
referred  to.  But  where,  it  may  be  asked,  are  such  compu- 
tations to  be  found?  Inquiries  regarding  this  subject  have 


46  OBJECTIONS   TO   THE   THEORY   OF   GRAVITATION  [36 

been  sent  to  various  observatories  and  scientific  journals 
and  the  answers  received  to  these  inquiries  indicate  that 
no  such  computations  are  anywhere  in  existence.  As  a  sam- 
ple of  such  answers  I  may  quote  from  Mr.  G.  W.  Hill  of  the 
Naval  Observatory,  Washington,  D.*  C.,  upon  this  subject: 

"I  do  not  know  any  more  accurate  values  of  the  quanti- 
ties you  ask  for  than  those  given  by  Mr.  Proctor.  They 
do  not  particularly  interest  the  mathematical  astronomer 
as  he  has  no  use  for  them.  Hence,  they  have  never  been 
computed  with  the  last  degree  of  precision.  Their  com- 
putation is  sufficiently  laborious  .  .  .  and  two  months' 
work  would  be  necessary  to  get  them  with  all  possible  ex- 
actitude. 

"No  exhaustive  treatise  on  the  lunar  theory  exists  in  the 
English  language.  Perhaps  the  translation  of  Laplace's 
Mecanique  Celeste  by  Dr.  N.  Bowditch  comes  the  nearest 
to  it." 

Laplace  and  Mr.  Proctor,  however,  treat  only  of  the  gen- 
eral problem  and  do  not  discuss  the  perturbing  forces  upon 
the  Moon  in  detail.  Newton  gives  the  mean  value  of  the 
solar  perturbing  force  upon  the  Moon  as  1/638,000  of  gravity 
at  the  Earth's  surface,  or  1/179  of  the  principal  force  which 
holds  the  Moon  in  its  orbit.  Herschel  gives  the  ratio  of  the 
solar  perturbing  force  to  the  central  force  holding  the  Moon 
in  its  terrestial  orbit  for  three  positions  of  the  perturbed 
body,  or  full  Moon,  last  quarter,  and  new  Moon,  as  1  :  90, 
1  :  179,  and  1  :  89,  respectively.  He  also  represents  by 
means  of  lines  of  various  lengths  the  values  of  the  perturb- 
ing forces  at  intermediate  positions.  But  he  makes  no  at- 
tempt to  compute  the  continuous  effect  of  these  values  of 
the  perturbing  force.  And  Mr.  Proctor,  one  of  the  most  re- 
cent authorities  on  the  subject,  and  in  a  volume  devoted 
wholly  to  our  satellite,  follows  very  closely  in  the  footsteps 
of  Herschel  and  Newton.  All  these  authorities  appear  to 
notice  only  one  of  the  perturbing  forces  upon  the  Moon,  name- 
ly, that  due  to  the  distance-variation  of  the  perturbed  from 
the  perturbing  body.  The  more  powerful  factors  due  to  the 
distance-variation  of  the  Moon  from  the  Earth  and  to  the 
variation  of  the  Moon's  velocity  around  the  Sun  are  ignored, 
and  no  reference  whatever  is  made  to  any  work  where  these 
ignored  factors  are  discussed,  or  where  the  continuous  effect 


36]  THE   PROBLEM  OF   THREE   BODIES  47 

of  the  factor,  the  separate  values  of  which  are  given,  is  car- 
ried out  consecutively  and  cumulatively  through  the  suc- 
cessive time-units  during  which  it  acts.* 

In  contrast  with  this  there  may  be  inserted  here  the  fol- 
lowing from  Prof.  Young's  General  Astronomy,  Art.  438: 

"But  while  the  general  problem  of  three  bodies  is  thus  in- 
tractable, all  the  special  cases  of  it  which  arise  in  the  con- 
sideration of  the  moon's  motion  and  in  the  motion  of  the 
planets  have  been  solved  by  special  methods  of  approxima- 
tion. Newton  himself  led  the  way;  and  the  strongest  proof 
of  the  truth  of  his  theory  of  gravitation  lies  in  the  fact  that 
it  not  only  accounts  for  the  regular  elliptic  motions  of  the 
heavenly  bodies,  but  also  for  the  irregularities,  of  these 
motions.". 

*The  lunar  theory  is  also  discussed  by  Airy  in  his  Gravitation. 
Hugh  Godfrey  has  published  a  brief  'elementary  book,  and  Prof.  John 
N.  Stockwoll  a  larger  volume,  upon  this  subject.  But  these  works,  like 
those  of  Laplace,  Newton,  Herschel  and  Proctor,  treat  only  the  general 
problem  and  do  not  attempt  to  give  the  cumulative  effect  of  all  or  any 
portion  of  the  perturbing  forces  here  considered  for  the  entire  periods 
of  their  action.  Probably  the  best  treatises  on  the  subject  are  in 
French,  German'  and  Latin.  Some  of  them  are:  by  Plana,  Theorie  du! 
Mouvement  de/  la  Lime,  1832 ;  by  Delauney,  Theorie  du  Mouvement  de 
la  Lune,  Tomes  xxviii  and  xxix,  of  the  Memoirs  of  the  Paris  Acaae- 
my  of  Sciences;  by  P.  A.  Hansen,  Fundamenta  Nova  Investigations  Or- 
bitae  quam  Luna  Perlustrat,  1834;  and  by  the  same  author,  Darlegung,-. 
etc.,  1864. 

Jt  is  a  strange  commentary  that  these  earlier  works  should  have  at 
least  fully  as  complete  a  theory  of  the  lunar  forces  as  those  most  re- 
cently published. 


CHAPTER  III 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  TWO  BODIES 


In  respect,  however,  merely  of  philosophic  thought,  we 
must  feel  that  Daniel  Bernouilli  was  right;  we  can  conceive 
the  sun  attracting  Jupiter  and  Jupiter  attracting  the  sun 
without  any  intervening  medium,  if  they  are  ordered  to  do 
so.  But  the  question  remains — Are  they  so  ordered? 

—LORD  KELVIN. 

Can  gray  hair  make  folly  venerable? — JUNIUS. 

Another  lump  of  ignorance  (which  had  enabled  the  old 
generalization  to  exist)  was  removed,  and  a  new  generaliza- 
tion, that  of  universal  gravitation,  was  afterwards  formed. 
But  it  is  probable  that  this  law  is  only  conceived  of  as  true 
through  our  ignorance;  nay  it  is  certain  that  belief  in  its 
truth  presents  the  gravest  difficulties. 

—EDWARD   CARPENTEK. 

37.  The  Law  of  Equal  Areas  in  Equal  Times. — In  the  last 
chapter  the  back  action  of  the  Earth's  attraction  when  the 
Moon  was  receding,  and  the  front  action  of  the  same  attrac- 
ion  when  the  Moon  was  approaching,  were  mentioned  as 
the  current  regulator  of  the  Moon's  motion  in  its  terrestial 
orbit.  There  is,  however,  another  regulator  assigned  for 
such  motions,  especially  in  the  case  of  the  planets;  viz.,  the 
second  law  of  Kepler;  which  is  that  the  radius  vector  of  a 
planet's  orbit  sweeps  over  equal  areas  in  equal  times.  The 
famous  astronomer,  John  Kepler,  finding  it  impossible  to  rec- 
oncile the  actual  positions  of  the  planet  Mars  with  the  idea 
of  circular  planetary  motion,  which  was  then  generally  ac- 
cepted, tried  elliptic  motion  with  varying  velocity  and  the 
Sun  at  one  focus.  This  fitted  the  observed  facts  so  well  in 
the  case  of  both  Mars  and  the  Earth  that  he  became  con- 
vinced of  the  correctness  of  his  first  two  laws  (regarding 
elliptic  orbits  and  equal  areas  in  equal  times)  for  all  plan- 
etary motions. 


37]  THE  PROBLEM  OF  TWO  BODIES  49 

The  thought  occurs  here  that,  if  the  back  and  front  ac- 
tions of  the  central  attractions  could  account  for  the  elliptic 
motions  of  the  Moon  and  of  the  planets,  the  law  of  equal 
areas  would  be  uncalled  for,  or  vice  versa;  for  both  are  giv- 
en to  explain  the  same  phenomena,  and,  it  seems,  in  view 
of  the  conclusions  arrived  at  in  the  last  chapter,  that  the 
one  cannot  be  implied  by,  or  involved  in,  the  other. 

Now  it  is  true  that  the  radius  vector  of  a  moving  body 
under  certain  circumstances  will  describe  equal  areas  in 
equal  times;  and  these  circumstances  are:  uniform  circular 
motion  with  respect  to  the  center  of  revolution  and  uniform 
rectilineal  motion  with  respect  to  a  fixed  point  outside  of 
the  line  of  motion.  The  radius  vector  of  the  moving  body 
in  the  former  case  gives  the  base  of  a  triangle  of  which  the 
velocity  of  the  body  gives  the  perpendicular  height;  and  to 
obtain  equal  areas  in  equal  times  it  is  necessary  that  as  the 
radius  vector  increases  or  diminishes  in  a  unit  of  time,  the 
perpendicular  height  must  diminish  or  increase,  respectively, 
in  the  same  time  in  exactly  the  same  ratio;  or  vice  versa. 
In  the  case  of  elliptical  motion  with  a  varying  radius  vector, 
e.  g.,  this  law  of  equal  areas  requires  not  only  a  variation 
of  the  angular  velocity,  but  of  the  absolute  velocity,  of  the 
moving  body,  'the  latter  in  exact  inverse  correspondence  with 
the  variations  of  the  radius  vector.  Bearing  this  in  mind, 
let  us  examine  the  explanations  of  the  law  of  equal  areas 
given  by  three  principal  scientific  authorities,  to  which  nearly 
all  other  authorities  merely  refer. 

Prof.  R.  A.  Proctor*   says: 

"The  law  of  equable  discription  of  areas  indeed  is  true  for 
a  body  moving  around  a  center  attracting  according  to  any 
law,  since  it  simply  implies  that  there  is  no  force  perpen- 
dicular to  the  radius  vector.  .  .  .  Hence  under  a  force 
not  tending  to  change  at  any  instant  the  rate  of  the  moving 
body's  perpendicular  departure  from  the  radius  vector,  the 
areas  swept  over  in  equal  times  will  be  equal.  But  a  cen- 
tral force  acts  always  in  the  direction  of  the  radius  vector 
and  is  therefore  a  force  of  the  kind  supposed.  Accordingly 
a  body  traveling  around  an  attracting  center  will  move  so 
that  the  radius  vector  sweeps  over  equal  areas  in  equal 
times." 

*Ency.   Britt.,   Art.    "Astronomy." 


50  OBJECTIONS   TO   THE   THEORY  OF  GRAVITATION  [37 

Unfortunately  for  this  explanation,  Prof.  Proctor  confined 
his  attention  to  change  of  perpendicular  height  of  the  area 
only,  apparently  ignoring  change  of  the  radius  vector  itself. 
It  is  obvious  that  the  area  of  a  triangle  depends  just  as  much 
on  the  base  (radius  vector)  as  on  the  vertical  height  (veloc- 
ity) ;  and  it  is  equally  obvious  that  with  an  attracting  center 
"varying  according  to  any  law,'*  which  appears  to  imply  a 
variable  radius  vector,  and  with  a  constant  vertical  height — 
which  is  Proctor's  proposition — we  cannot  have  equable  de- 
scription of  areas.  A  perturbing  force  is  just  as  apt  to  act 
along  the  radius  vector  as  vertically  to  it;  in  which  case,  if 
the  velocity  or  vertical  height  be  unaffected,  there  would  be 
elliptic  motion  but  without  equal  description  of  areas  in 
equal  times.  It  seems  really  strange  to  see  so  lame  an  ex- 
planation from  so  high  an  authoritiy. 

Sir  John  Herschel,  having  occasion  to  speak  upon  the 
subject*  says: 

"As  an  abstract  dynamical  proposition,  the  reader  will 
find  it  demonstrated  by  Newton,  in  the  first  proposition  of  the 
Principia,  with  an  elementary  simplicity  to  which  we  really 
could  add  nothing  but  obscurity  by  amplification,  that  any 
body,  urged  toward  a  central  point  by  a  force  continually 
directed  thereto,  and  thereby  deflected  into  a  curvilinear  path, 
will  describe  about  that  center  equal  areas  in  equal  times. 
.  .  .  It  is  a  property  of  orbital  rotation  under  the  influ- 
ence of  central  forces  generally,  and,  as  such,  we  daily  see 
it  exemplified  in  a  thousand  familiar  instances.  A  simple 
experimental  illustration  of  it  is  to  tie  a  bullet  to  a  thin  string 
and,  having  whirled  it  round  with  a  moderate  velocity  in 
a  vertical  plane,  to  ...  allow  it  to  coil  itself  round  a 
cylindrical  rod  held  very  firmly  in  a  horizontal  position. 
The  bullet  will  then  approach  the  center  of  motion  in  a 
spiral  line;  and  the  increase  of  its  angular  velocity,  and  the 
rapid  diminution  of  its  periodic  time  when  near  the  center, 
will  express,  more  clearly  than  words,  the  compensation  by 
which  its  uniform  description  of  areas  is  maintained  under 
a  constantly  diminishing  distance." 

But  the  increase  of  the  bullet's  angular  velocity,  and  the 
rapid  diminution  of  its  periodic  time,  do  not  necessarily  ex- 
press the  compensation  by  which  its  uniform  description 

*  Outlines  of  Astronomy,  p.  324. 


37]  THE  PROBLEM  OF  TWO  BODIES  51 

of  areas  is  maintained  under  a  constantly  diminishing  dis- 
tance. The  expression  of  such  compensation  involves  more 
than  an  increase  of  angular  velocity  and  a  diminution  of  per- 
iodic time.  Jt  involves,  in  fact,  an  increase  of  the  bullet's 
absolute  velocity;  and  not  only  an  increase  of  its  absolute 
velocity,  but  of  the  tangential  component  of  its  absolute  ve- 
locity. For  a  uniform  velocity  of  the  bullet  involves,  under 
diminishing  distance,  both  an  increase  of  angular  velocity 
and  a  diminution  of  periodic  time,  as  well  as  an  increase  of 
absolute  velocity;  but  it  does  not  involve  an  increase  in  the 
vertical  component  of  the  absolute  velocity,  and  consequently 
does  not  involve  a  uniform  description  of  areas  in  equal 
times.  This  is  sufficiently  obvious  from  what  has  already 
been  said.  The  familiar  illustration  which  Herschel  gives 
of  the  law  of  equal  areas  in  equal  times  turns  out,  therefore, 
to  be  no  illustration  of  that  law  at  all.  An  essential  element 
is  lacking — the  necessary  increase  of  the  tangential  com- 
ponent; and  this  element  the  illustration  does  not  involve, 
nor  is  it  even  mentioned  by  the  illustrious  author.  We  turn, 
then,  to  Newton's  Principia,  where  Herschel  assures  that 
we  shall  find  a  simple  demonstration  of  the  law  in  the  first 
proposition  of  that  work,  and  this  is  what  we  find: 

"PROPOSITION  I. 

"T)he  areas  which  revolving  bodies  describe  by  radii  drawn 
to  an  immovable  center  of  force  do  lie  in  the  same  immov- 
able planes,  and  are  proportional  to  the  times  in  which  they 
are  described. 

"For,  suppose  the  time  to  be  divided  into  equal  parts,  and 
in  the  first  part  of  the  time  let  the  body  by  its  innate  force 
describe  the  right  line  AB.  In  the  second  part  of  that  time 
the  same  would,  (by  Law  1)*  if  not  hindered,  proceed  di- 
rectly to  c,  along  the  line  Be,  equal  to  AB;  so  that  by  the 
radii  AS,  BS,  cS,  drawn  to  the  center,  the  equal  areas  ASB, 
BSc,  would  be  described  But  when  the  body  is  arrived  at 
B,  suppose  that  the  centripetal  force  acts  at  once  with  a 
great  impulse,  and,  turning  aside  the  body  from  the  right 
line  Be,  compels  it  afterwards  to  confine  its  motion  along 
the  right  line  BC.  Draw  cC  parallel  to  BS,  meeting  BC  in 
C;  and  at  the  end  of  the  second  part  of  time,  the  body  (by 

*LAW  1.  Every  body  perseveres  in  a  state  of  rest,  or  uniform  mo- 
tion in  a  right  line,  unless  it  is  compelled  to  change  that  state  by  forces 
impressed  thereon. 


52 


OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION 


[37 


Cor.  1.  of  the  Laws*)  will  be  found  in  C,  in  the  same  plane 
with  the  triangle  ASB.  Join  SC,  and,  because  SB  and  Cc  are 
parallel,  the  triangle  SBC  will  be  equal  to  the  triangle  SBc, 
and  therefore,  also  to  the  triangle  SAB.  By  the  like  argu- 
ment, if  the  centripetal  force  acts  successively  in  C,  D,  E, 
etc.,  and  makes  the  body,  in  each  single  particle  of  time, 
to  describe  the  right  lines  CD,  DE,  EF,  etc.,  they  will  all 
lie  in  the  same  plane;  and  the  triangle  SCD  will  be  equal 
to  the  triangle  SBC,  and  SDE  to  SCD,  and  SEF  to  SDE. 


B 


And  therefore,  in  equal  times,  equal  areas  are  described  in 
one  immovable  plane;  and,  by  composition,  any  sums  SADS, 
SAFS,  of  tnese  areas,  are  one  to  the  other  as  the  times  in 
which  they  are  described:  Now  let  the  number  of  these 

*COR.  1.  of  the  Laws.  A  body  by  two  forces  conjoined  will  describe 
the  diagonal  of  a  parallelogram,  in  the  same  time  that  it  would  describe 
ihe  sides,  by  these  forces  apart. 


87]  THE  PROBLEM   OF   TWO  BODIES  53 

triangles  be  augmented,  and  their  breadth  diminished  ad  in- 
finitum; and  (by  Cor.  4,  Lem.  Ill)*  their  ultimate  perimeter 
ADF  will  be  a  curve  line;  and  therefore  the  centripetal  force 
by  which  the  body  is  perpetually  drawn  back  from  the  tan- 
gent of  this  curve,  will  act  continually;  and  any  described 
areas  SADS,  SAFS,  which  are  always  proportional  to  the 
times  of  description,  will,  in  this  case  also  be  proportional  to 
these  times.  Q.  E.  D. 

"Cor.  1.  The  velocity  of  a  body  attracted  toward  an  im- 
movable center  in  spaces  void  of  resistance,  is  reciprocally 
as  the  perpendicular  let  fall  from  that  center  on  the  line  that 
touches  the  orbit.  For  the  velocities  in  these  places  A,  B, 
C,  D,  E,  are  as  the  bases  AB,  BC,  CD,  DE,  EF,  of  equal 
triangles,  and  these  bases  are  reciprocally  as  the  perpendic- 
ulars let  fall  upon  them." 

It  will  be  seen  that,  from  the  law  of  equal  areas,  the  cor- 
ollary (Cor.  1)  necessarily  follows  that  the  tangential  veloc- 
ity of  a  revolving  body  incrceases  as  its  distance  from  the 
center  diminishes.  This  is  the  essential  point  of  which  we 
have  all  along  been  trying  to  find  some  explanation  in  har- 
mony with  the  present  theory.  Newton's  explanation  is  in- 
deed clear  and  simple  and  admirable  verbally;  but  logically 
and  mathematically  it  may  do  no  harm  to  examine  it  closely, 
especially  with  regard  to  two  important  particulars. 

The  first  of  these  is  changing  the  periphery  of  a  polygon 
into  a  curve  line,  which  is  effected  as  follows:  "Let  the 
number  of  these  triangles"  (forming  the  polygon)  "be  aug- 
mented and  their  breadth  diminished  ad  infinitum  and 

their  ultimate  perimeter  will  be  a  curve  line."  This  is  true 
if  by  infinite  subdivision  a  magnitude  can  be  annihilated,  for 
that  is,  in  plain  words,  what  it  means.  Otherwise  it  can 
not  be  true.  A  curve  is  a  line  no  part  of  which  is  a  straight 
line.  If  the  straight  lines  which  form  the  bases  of  the  tri- 
angles of  a  polygon  become  by  infinite  subdivision  a  curve, 
then  the  ultimate  base  of  each  division  of  such  triangles  must 
have  become  something  less  than  a  straight  line — must  have 
become  a  mere  point,  which  has  no  magnitude.  Thus  the 
original  sides  of  the  polygon  would  each  have  become  changed 

*LEMMA  III.  The  same  ultimate  ratios  are  also  ratios  of  equality 
when  the  breadths  AB,  BC,  CD,  etc.,  of  the  parallelograms  are  unequal 
and  are  diminished  ad  infinitum.  COR.  4,  and  therefore  these  ultimate 
figures  (as  to  their  perimeters)  are  not  rectilinear,  but  curvilinear  lim- 
its of  rectilinear  figures. 


54  OBJECTIONS   TO    THE    THEORY   OP    GRAVITATION  [38 

into  an  infinite  number  of  points  having  no  magnitude — have, 
in  fact,  become  annihilated,  for  reversing  the  process  and 
multiplying  the  ultimate  point,  or  no  magnitude,  by  infinity,  we 
still  have  no  magnitude.  Nothing  taken  even  an  infinite  num- 
ber of  times  is  still  nothing.  Would  a  square  mile,  or  the 
solid  Earth,  be  reduced  to  an  infinite  number  of  points  of 
no  magnitude  if  infinitely  subdivided?  and  if  a  surface  or 
a  volume  cannot  be  thus  annihilated,  what  right  have  we  to 
take  the  liberty  of  entertaining  such  notion  solely  with  regard 
to  a  linear  entity? 

And  besides  there  is  the  objection  of  time.  To  some 
minds  the  process  of  infinite  subdivision  seems  to  be:  Poly- 
gon divided  ad  infinitum:  Presto  change:  There's  your 
curve!  While  to  other  minds  the  process  could  not  take 
place  in  all  eternity,  because  infinite  means  without  end. 

38.  Supra-Rational  Mathematics. — It  is  true  that  we  teach 
this  instantaneous  annihilation  in  our  mathematical  text- 
books— that  any  finite  quantity  or  number  divided  by  infin- 
ity equals  nothing.  We  also  teach  the  direct  contrary  of 
this — that  the  product  of  the  divisor  and  the  quotient  equals 
the  dividend.  Either  one  or  the  other  must  be  wrong;  which 
is  it? 

We  also  have  mathematical  "axioms"  which  are  not  al- 
ways axiomatic.  For  example,  that  equals  multiplied  or  di- 
vided by  equals  are  equals;  also  that  like  powers  and  roots  of 
equals  are  equals.  By  the  use  of  such  "axioms,"  we  may,  and 
do,  have  all  sorts  of  absurd  equations.  For  example,  let  x  = 
the  reader's  age  and  y  =  the  age  of  Methuselah,  and  let  s  = 
the  sum  of  both.  Then  x+y  =  s,  and  (x+y)  (x — y  =  s(x — y) ; 
whence  x2 — y2  =  sx — sy;  whence  x2 — sx  —  y2 — sy;  whence 
x2 — sx+s2/4  =  y~ — sy+s2/4;  whence,  extracting  roots,  x=y, 
or  the  reader  is  just  exactly  as  old  as  Methuselah!  By  in- 
troducing the  factor  x — y  into  both  sides  of  the  equation, 
the  value  x=y  was  introduced,  and  after  the  extraction  of 
the  roots,  the  solution  is  confined  to  this  value  alone.  This 
is  a  common  practice  in  algebraic  operations,  and  often  in 
important  physical  investigations.  Textbooks  nearly  always 
urge  dividing  an  equation  through  by  x  to  simplify  the  ex- 


c8]  THE   PROBLEM  OF  TWO  BODIES  55 

pression  when  possible,  though  by  doing  so  one  possible  value 
of  x,  namely,  x  =  0,  is  thus  eliminated. 

Again,  let  x — 1  =  2.  Multiplying  by  x — 5,  then  x2 — 6x+5 
=  2x — 10.  Subtracting  x — 7.  then  y* — 7x+12  =  x — 3.  Divid- 
ing by  x — 3,  then  x — 4  =  1;  whence  x  =  5,  though  in  the 
first  equation  x  =  3.  In  multiplying  by  x — 5,  the  value 
x  —  5  was  introduced  and  in  dividing  by  x — 3,  the  value 
x  —  3  was  lost  out.  Hundreds  of  such  illustrations,  known 
to  the  writer,  many  of  them  known  for  centuries,  might  be 
given.  Prof.  Huxley's  warning  is  certainly  apropos:  "Mathe- 
matics is  like  a  mill  and  what  we  take  out  of  it  depends  en- 
tirely on  what  we  put  in." 

We  have  in  our  mathematics  even  an  infinite  variety  of 
infinities;  an  infinity  of  serial  numbers,  an  infinity  of  even 
numbers,  an  infinity  of  prime  numbers,  an  infinity  of  per- 
fect numbers,  an  infinity  of  terms  in  each  of  an  infinite 
number  of  infinite  series  of  an  infinite  variety  of  common 
differences  and  ratios.  The  difference  between  the  infinite 
series  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  etc,  and  the  infinite  series  2,  4,  6,  8,  etc., 
is  another  infinite  series  1,  3,  5,  7,  etc.,  and  all  three  are 
equal  in  the  sense  that  as  a  divisor  each  gives  the  same  quo- 
tient for  any  finite  dividend.  The  infinite  series  1,  3,  9,  27, 
etc.,  is  one-third  of  the  infinite  series  3,  9,  27,  81,  etc.,  term 
for  term,  or  the  former  exceeds  the  latter  by  unity;  take 
your  choice. 

Passing  over  Bishop  Berkeley's  "ghosts  of  departed  quan- 
tities, >'  and  Sydney  Lupton's  "opprobrium  of  mathematics," 
a  few  quotations  from  other  excellent  authorities  on  this 
subject  may  not  prove  unedifying. 

"What  has  given  great  force  to  certain  principles  of  phys- 
ics and  mechanics  has  been  the  very  complicated  mathe- 
matical apparatus  in  which  they  have  been  wrapped.  Every- 
thing presented  in  an  algebraic  form  at  once  acquires  for 
certain  minds  the  character  of  indisputable  truths.  The 
most  perfect  sceptic  willingly  attributes  a  mysterious  virtue 
to  equations  and  bows  to  their  supposed  power.  They  tend 
more  and  more  to  replace  in  teaching,  reason  and  experience. 
These  delusive  veils  which  now  surround  the  most  simple 
principles  only  too  often  serve  to  mask  uncertainties.  It 
is  by  lifting  these  that  I  have  succeeded  more  than  once 


56  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY   OF    GRAVITATION  [39 

in  showing  the  frailty  of  scientific  beliefs,  which  for  many 
scholars  possess  the  authority  of  revealed  dogmas."* 

"In  mathematics,  as  in  other  sciences,  conviction  comes 
from  many  quarters,  and  one  might  almost  say  that  where 
higher  mathematics  enters  into  the  work  of  the  physicist 
or  the  engineer,  the  conviction  that  comes  from  the  logical 
consistency  of  a  mathematical  demonstration  is  less  import- 
ant than  the  conviction  that  is  due  to  insight  into  the  phys- 
ical facts  and  to  the  perception  of  the  correspondence  between 
the  mathematical  representation  and  the  data  of  experi- 
ment.''! 

"At  various  times  differences  of  opinion  have  existed  among 
mathematicians  giving  rise  to  controversies  as  to  the  valid- 
ity of  whole  lines  of  reasoning,  and  affecting  the  results 
of  such  reasoning:  a  considerable  amount  of  difference  of 
opinion  of  this  character  exists  among  mathematicians  at 
the  present  time.  ...  It  has  been  shown  that  results 
which  were  once  supposed  to  have  been  fully  established 
by  demonstrations  are,  in  point  of  fact,  affected  with  error. 
.  .  .  It  is"  clear  that  the  idealist  may  build  whole  super- 
structures on  a  foundation  which  the  empiricist  regards  as 
made  of  sand."$ 

"The  tendency  to  hide  ignorance  under  the  cover  of  a 
mathematical  formula  had  already  appeared,  but  was  not 
openly  advocated. "§ 

"Mr.  Bertrand  Russell  was  right  in  saying  that  'mathema- 
tics is  the  science  in  which  one  never  knows  what  one  is 
talking  about  nor  whether  what  one  says  is  true'."|| 

The  object  here  is  to  show  the  looseness  of  some  of  our 
mathematical  conceptions,  even  today,  of  which  Newton's  ex- 
pression above  is  one  example.  It  was  necessary  for  the 
proof  of  his  propositions  that  a  polygon  should  be  transformed 
into  a  curve;  and  though  the  process  he  used  seemed,  and 
still  seems  to  the  vast  majority  even  today,  perfectly  inno- 
cent and  legitimate,  it  none  the  less  appears  to  others  noth- 
ing else  than  a  species  of  mathematical  anarchy,  or  nihilism. 

39.  The  Parallelogram  of  Forces. — But  the  most  fatal 
objection  to  Newton's  demonstration,  because  directly  ap- 

*M.   Le  Bon,   The  Evolution   of  Forces;   Nature,   79,   122. 
tDr.  George  A.  Gibson,  Professor  of  mathematics,  University  of  Glas- 
gow;  Nature,   82,   110. 

JProf.    E.   W.    Hohson;    Address    Sec.    A.    B.    A..    Sheffield,    1910. 
§Prof.    Arthur    Schuster;    Nature,    87,    375. 
IIC.    J.    Keyser,    Science,    No.    904,    p.    640. 


£9]  THE    PROBLEM    OP   TWO   BODIES  57 

plica ble  to  his  main  argument,  is   his   assumption   that  the 
body  would   move  in  any  unit  of  time   in  the  path   produced 
of  the  preceding   unit  of  time.     He  does  not  make  this  as- 
sumption  directly;    in  fact  he  bases  such  impulsion  of  the 
body  upon  his  first  law  of  motion.     But  the  assumption  cer- 
tainly seems  not  the  less  clearly  involved  in  his  argument. 
"For  suppose  the  time  to  be   divided  into  equal  parts,"  he 
says,  "and  in  the  first  part  of  that  time  let  the  body,  by  its 
innate  force,  describe  the  right  line  AB.     In  the  second  part 
of  than  time  the  same  would    (by  Law  1),  if  not  hindered, 
proceed  directly  to  c  along  the  line  Be,  equal  to  AB,  so  that 
by  the  radii  AS,  BS,  cS,  drawn  to  the  center,  the  equal  areas 
ASB,  BSc,  would  be  described."     Here  liesi  the  error.     In  the 
second  part  of  the  time  the  body  would  proceed  directly  to  c, 
along  the  line   Be.     Similarly  in  the  third  part  of  the  time, 
the  body  would  proceed  directly  to  d  along  the  line  Cd;   in 
the  fourth  part,  directly  to  e  along  the  line  De;   and  so  on. 
The  assumption  is  clearly  implied  here  that  each  of  the  lines 
ABc,  BCd,  CDe,  DEf,  are   right  lines.     Indeed  if  they  were 
not  right  lines,  the  geometrical  theorem  which  Newton  em- 
ploys, and  on  which  the  whole  argument  depends    (namely, 
that  triangles  on  equal  bases  and   between  the  same   paral- 
lels are  equal),  could  not  apply.     It  is  certain  also  that  this 
argument  is  employed  with  respect  to  motion  in  a  curve,  for 
eventually  these  same  right  lines  are  by  a  process  of  infin- 
ite division  alleged  to  be  reduced  to  a  curve  line.     The  ul- 
timate curve  line  would  certainly  pass  through  the  points  A, 
B,   C,   D,   E,   F,   etc.     The  lines   AB,  BC,   CD,   DE,   EF,   etc., 
would  therefore  be  chords  of  the  curve  line;    and  the  lines 
Be,   Cd,   De,   Ef,   in  which   Newton   assumes   the  centrifugal 
force  would  impel  the  body,  would  be  continuations  of  these 
chords.     But  such  impulsion  is  impossible  and  inconceivable. 
Newton  employs  the  law  of  the  parallelogram  of  forces  to 
prove  the  law  of  equal  areas.     In  one  unit  of  time  the  body 
would  move  in  the  diagonal  of  the  two  forces   and  in  the 
following  unit  of  time,  if  not  acted  on  by  the  central  force, 
it  would  move  in   the   continuation   of  this   diagonal   .     But 
under   no    conceivable   circumstances    can   a   body   revolving 


58  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [39 

round  a  center  do  this;  neither  in  a  circle,  an  ellipse,  nor 
even  in  a  polygon,  as  a  whole.  It  can  be  done  by  a  moving 
body  acted  on  by  two  forces,  not  revolving  round  a  center. 
But  angular  motion  necessarily  intplies  tangential  projection, 
the  direction  of  which — as  well  as  of  the  diagonal  of  the 
parallelogram  formed  by  the  tangential  projection  with  the 
central  force — consequently  changes  in  every  unit  of  time. 

This  is  not  a  case  of  limiting  values.  The  objection  is 
of  a  different  kind,  due  to  a  faulty  diagrammatic  construc- 
tion. The  real  triangles  involved  in  the  parallelograrnic 
representation  of  a  planetary  orbit  have  the  radius  vectors 
extremely  long,  the  tangential  side  of  the  parallelogram 
(representing  the  velocity  per  second)  being  much  shorter 
(about  1/5,000,000  of  the  radius  vector,  in  the  case  of  the 
Earth),  and  the  other  side  of  the  parallelogram,  represent- 
ing the  value  of  the  Sun's  attraction  in  one  second,  more 
minute  still  (only  1/10,000,000  of  the  tangential  side),  with 
the  tangential  side  always  very  nearly  at  right  angles  to 
the  radius  vector.  When  we  represent  these  conditions  as 
accurately  as  we  conveniently  can,  we  find  that  the  moment- 
ary paths  of  the  planet  are  each  and  all  inclined  to  one  an- 
other, and  that  the  diagonal  of  one  parallelogram,  produced, 
can  not  possibly  form  the  tangential  side  of  the  next  paral- 
lelogram, as  Newton  assumes,  because  that  diagonal,  being 
in  fact  a  chord  of  the  ultimate  curve,  if  continued,  would  nec- 
essarily project  outwards  across  that  curve,  in  which  the 
planet  actually  moves;  i.  e.,  the  assumed  path  of  the  planet 
would  cross  its  actual  path. 

Newton's  assumption  that  the  tangential  force  would  im- 
pel the  body,  not  in  a  tangent  to  its  curved  path,  but  in  a 
continuation  of  a  chord  of  that  path,  is,  therefore  erroneous. 
The  line  Be  must  be  supposed  to  unite  angularly  with  the 
line  AB  at  the  point  B.  The  triangles  ASB  and  BSc  are  not, 
therefore,  between  the  same  parallels,  and,  being  on  equal 
bases,  they  can  not  be  equal.  Consequently  Newton's  dem- 
onstration has  not  a  particle  of  foundation  to  rest  upon,  and 
in  the  absence  of  any  assignable  physical  cause  for  the  es- 
sential acceleration  of  absolute  tangential  velocity  which 


40]  THE    PROBLEM    OF   TWO   BODIES  59 

the  law  of  equal  areas  involves,  it  certainly  appears  that 
that  essential  acceleration,  and  consequently  that  law,  still  re- 
mains undemonstrated. 

40.  Contradiction  of  Kepler's  Second  and  Third  Laws. — 
B'.it  perhaps  the  most  fatal  objection  to  Kepler's  law  of  equal 
areas  in  equal  times  is  that  it  is  directly  contradicted  by 
Kepler's  third  law.  The  latter  may  be  stated  as  follows: 
The  squares  of  the  times  of  revolution  of  two  planets,-  are 
in  the  ratio  of  the  cubes  of  their  mean  distances. 

Let  the  distance  of  one  planet  be  D,  its  period  P,  and  let 
the  distance  of  a  second  planet  be  D',  and  its  period  P'. 
Then  according  to  Kepler's  third  law,  D3  :  D'3  =  P2  :  P'2. 
But  P  =  2^-D/V  and  P'  =  27rD'/V,  where  V  and  V  are 
the  velocities  of  the  planets  in  whatever  unit  of  time  chos- 
en. Substituting  these  values  of  P  and  P'  in  the  foregoing 
equation,  we  have  D'347raDVV^=D34fl.2D'VV/2,  or  DV2  =  D'V'2; 
that  is,  the  product  of  the  planetary  distances  by  the  squares 
of  the  velocities  of  the  respective  planets  at  these  distances 
are  constant.  For  example,  the  distance  of  Neptune,  that 
of  the  Earth  being  unity,  and  its  velocity  in  miles  per  sec- 
ond are  respectively  30.0543  and  3.36;  of  Uranus  19.18338  and 
4.20;  of  Saturn  9.5399  and  5,95;  of  Jupiter  5.2028  and  8.06; 
of  Mars  1.5237  and  14.99;  of  the  Earth  1  and  18.38;  of  Venus 
0.723  and  21.61;  of  Mercury  0.387  and  29.55*.  And  the  prod- 
ucts of  the  distance  and  velocity  squared  of  each  planet  are 
339,  338,  338,  338,  342,  338,  337,  and  338,  respectively;  none 
of  which  varies  much  from  the  Earth's  average  value  of  338. 
Now,  by  Kepler's  second  law,  if  a  planet's  orbit  were  so 
perturbed  as  to  expand  it  outwards,  no  matter  how  far,  the 
planet's  velocity  would  become  diminished,  in  order  that 
equal  areas  would  be  described  by  the  radius  vector  in  equal 
times.  Let  it  be  supposed,  then,  that  Mercury's  orbit  were 
so  perturbed  that  it  occupied  the  orbits  of  all  the  planets 
from  the  innermost  to  the  outermost  in  succession.  At  its 
own  distance  of  0.387  and  velocity  of  29.55,  the  area  described 
by  its  radius  vector  in  one  second  is  5.7.  Then,  as  it  arrived 

*Newcomb's  Popular  Astronomy. 


60  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY   OF    GRAVITATION  [40 

at  the  orbit  of  Venus,  the  area  it  would  describe  would  of 
course  be  the  same,  according  to  Kepler's  second  law.  But 
Venus  itself  with  its  distance  of  0*.723  and  velocity  of  21.61 
describes  an  area  of  7.8  in  one  second,  or  nearly  two-fifths 
more  than  it  should  be  according  to  Kepler's  second  law. 
Arriving  at  the  Earth's  orbit,  Mercury's  area  per  second  would 
still  be  5.7,  while  that  of  the  Earth  itself  is  9.2.  Continuing 
outwards,  Mars'  area  per  second  is  11.4,  Jupiter's  20.9,  Saturn's 
28.4,  Uranus'  40.3,  and  Neptune's  50.5;  while,  by  the  law  of 
equal  areas  in  equal  times,  Mercury's  described  area  at  each 
of  these  positions  would  still  be  5.7,  or  just  half  what  it 
should  be  at  Mars  and  little  more  than  one-tenth  what  it 
should  be  at  Neptune. 

It  cannot  be  objected  here  that  Mercury's  orbit  could  not 
be  perturbed  so  much,  because  no  limit  has  been  assigned  to 
the  action  of  perturbing  forces,  and  because  comets  are  ac- 
tually supposed  to  describe  equal  areas  in  equal  times  in 
just  such  orbits.  Besides,  if  instead  of  the  planets  of  the 
Solar  System,  there  existed  a  swarm  of  meteorites  extend- 
ing outwards  in  the  Sun's  equatorial  plane — like  the  Aster- 
oids, or  the  alleged  constituents  of  the  ring  of  Saturn — not 
one  of  these  meteorites  could  describe  the  same  area  in 
the  same  time  as  another  meteorite,  if  the  radius  vectors 
of  the  two  differed^by  as  much  as  a  foot,  or  an  inch,  for  the 
reason  that  each  of  these  bodies  must  conform  to  the  law 
of  inverse  distance  squares,  which  is,  in  other  words,  Kep- 
ler's third  law,  and  which  is  entirely  different  from  the  law 
of  equal  areas  in  equal  times  both  as  to  velocity  and  gravity- 
fall  per  second  for  equal  radius  vectors.  And  yet  it  is  cur- 
rently assumed,  in  direct  contradiction  of  this,  that  a  re- 
volving body  can  sweep  outwards  or  inwards  millions  of 
miles  from  an  average  distance  and  continually  conform  to 
the  law  of  inverse  squares,  or  Kepler's  third  law. 

Since  the  two  laws  are  thus  found  to  be  contradictory, 
which  are  we  to  accept  for  our  guidance?  There  is,  however, 
no  question  of  the  truth  of  Kepler's  third  law.  It  admits  of 
proof  by  actual  observation,  and  has  been  so  proved;  while 
the  second  law  appears  to  be  merely  theoretic  and  never  to 


41]  THE   PROBLEM   OF   TWO   BODIES  61 

have  been  proved  at  all — nothing  more  than  an  adjunct  nec- 
essary to  the  law  of  gravitation. 

After  discovering  his  three  laws,  Kepler  is  said  to  have 
exclaimed  "O  God,  I  think  Thy  thoughts  after  Thee!"  It 
would  seem  more  in  keeping  with  wisdom  to  ask  God's  pity 
and  help  in  rightly  thinking  hardly  anything. 

41.  The  Increase  of  Absolute  Velocity. — It  is  admitted 
that,  when  a  body  revolving  about  a  center  moves  inwards 
to  that  center,  its  absolute  velocity  is  generally  increased 
because  the  diagonal  of  the  tangential  force  and  the  central 
force  is  generally  greater  than  the  tangential  side  of  the 
parallelogram  of  the  two  forces.  But  the  component  of  this 
increased  absolute  velocity  which  is  vertical  to  the  radius 
vector  and  which  determines  the  area  swept  over  by  it  is 
not  increased  but  remains  exactly  as  before;  so  that,  with 
a  changed  radius  vector,  the  areas  described  would  be  chang- 
ed correspondingly.  Prof.  Young*  says  that  a  resistance  ac- 
celerates a  comet's  speed.  "It  is  accelerated,"  he  states, 
"by  being  thus  allowed  to  drop  nearer  to  the  sun  and  gains 
its  speed  in  moving  inwards  under  the  sun's  attraction.'* 
The  diagonal  motion  (with  possibly  a  slight  degree  of  ap- 
plication of  the  law  of  falling  bodies)  might  increase  the 
velocity  so  long  as  the  falling  inwards  continued.  But  just 
as  soon  as  the  inward  motion  should  stop,  the  diagonal  in- 
crease of  speed  would  stop,  and,  owing  to  the  supposed  re- 
sistance, the  tangential  velocity  would  be  really  less  than 
before  the  inward  motion  began;  so  far,  at  least,  as  any 
physical  cause  appears  to  the  contrary.  The  same  diagonal 
velocity  would  increase  even  if  the  body  were  projected  out- 
wards from  the  Sun,  instead  of  inwards,  for  exactly  the  same 
reason,  and  would  continue  until  the  outward  motion  stop- 
ped, the  tangential  velocity,  though  not  of  course  the  angular 
velocity,  always  remaining  unchanged. 

If  the  perturbing  force  acts  along  the  radius  vector,  as 
is  here  supposed,  what  physical  cause  can  possibly  be  im- 
agined to  cause  a  change  in  the  rate  of  motion  in  a  direction 
perpendicular  to  the  radius  vector?  Some  such  cause,  acting 

*Gen.  Astron.,   Art.   710. 


62  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [42 

along  the  tangent,  such  as  the  resistance  supposed,  or  the 
perturbing  action  of  some  external  body,  must  be  assigned 
before  change  of  tangential  velocity*  can  take  place.  But  in 
the  absence  of  such  tangential  perturbance,  the  mere  motion 
inwards  or  outwards  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  physical  cause 
for  such  change  of  velocity  as  the  law  of  equal  areas  re- 
quires. It  seems  to  exist  as  such  only  in  imagination,  be- 
cause apparently  demanded  by  the  exigencies  of  the  case. 
And  without  such  real,  physical  cause  producing  a  change  in 
the  tangential  component  of  the  absolute  velocity,  there 
cannot  be  equable  description  of  areas  with  a  changing  ra- 
dius vector,  as  in  elliptic  motion. 

42.  Instability  of  a  Two-Body  System. — Since  there  ap- 
pears to  be  no  real  foundation  for  the  law  of  equal  areas  in 
equal  times,  it  is  manifest  that  it  would  be  quite  impossible 
for  even  a  single  body  to  circulate  around  a  central  body 
attracting  according  to  the  law  of  gravitation.  The  law  of 
equal  areas  constituted  the  machinery  whose  function  it 
was  to  slacken  the  tangential  speed  of  the  body  as  it  moved 
outwards,  so  as  to  prevent  the  further  tendency  to  move 
outwards;  and  it. was  the  function  of  the  same  law  to  in- 
crease the  speed  of  the  body  as  it  moved  inwards,  in  order 
to  prevent  its  further  tendency  to  move  inwards — and  thus 
maintain  the  stable  equilibrium  which  is  actually  observed. 
But  with  the  law  of  equal  areas  discredited  and  without 
real  existence  in  fact,  as  has  just  been  found,  apparently  from 
all  points  of  view,  even  the  simplest  two-body  astronomical 
unit — sometimes  called  Roche's  Problem — could  not,  accord- 
ing to  the  theory  of  gravitation,  maintain  a  stable  equilib- 
rium for  a  moment,  and  the  present  arrangement  of  the 
Solar  and  Sidereal  Systems  would  be  impossible. 

The  human  mind  will,  no  doubt,  naturally  revolt  against 
such  a  conclusion  when  no  other  apparent  natural  cause  ex- 
ists to  prevent  the  universe  from  falling  into  utter  disorder 
and  anarchy.  Nature,  however,  though  coy  regarding  her 
motives,  resorts  to  no  miracles  or  fictitious  agencies,  but  as 


43]  THE    TIDES  63 

we  may  see  later  on,  employs  only  the  simplest  means  m 
the  simplest  possible,  yet  beautifully  efficient,  ways  to  ac- 
complish her  ends. 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  TIDES 


If  we  should  come  to  a  case  in  which  the  evidence  is 
plainly  against  the  theory  we  are  examining,  we  must  give 
up  the  theory  at  once.  For  one  case  of  discordance  does 
more  to  destroy  a  theory  respecting  association  between  such 
and  such  phenomena,  than  a  hundred  cases  of  agreement 
would  do  in  the  way  of  affirming  it. — JUDGE  N.  T.  CARR. 

Wherefore  if  we  would  philosophize  in  earnest  and  give 
ourselves  to  the  search  of  all  the  truths  we  are  capable  of 
knowing,  we  must,  in  the  first  place,  lay  aside  all  our  preju- 
dices; in  other  words,  we  must  take  care  scrupulously  to 
with-hold  our  assent  from  the  opinions  we  formerly  admit- 
ted, until  upon  new  examination  we  discover  that  they  are 
true. — DES  CARTES. 

It  was  declared  to  be  inexpugnable,  and  put  away  and 
labeled  "hands  off"  among  the  most  sacred  achievements 
of  astronomy.  It  is  now  in  our  schoolbooks,  and  copied 
from  textbook  to  textbook,  and  so  impregnable  that,  if  any 
fact  were  quoted  against  it,  then  so  much  the  worse  for  the 
fact.— PROF.  J.  A.  PATTERSON. 

43.  The  Tidal  Tiheory. — According  to  this  theory  the 
Moon  is  the  chief  tide-producer;  and  the  alleged  cause  of 
the  tides,  at  least  according  to  Newton  and  most  other  au- 
thorities, is  the  difference  between  the  Moon's  attraction  at 
the  center  of  the  Earth  and  at  the  two  points  of  the  Earth's 
surface  which  is  nearest  to,  and  farthest  from,  our  satellite. 
Thus  on  the  side  of  the  Earth  nearest  to  the  Moon,  the  Moon's 
attraction  would  be  greater  than  at  the  Earth's  center  be- 
cause the  distance  in  the  former  case  is  less  than  in  the 
latter;  and  therefore  the  water  on  that  side  of  the  Earth 
would  be  drawn  away  from  the  Earth's  center,  thus  causing 


64  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [44 

the  tide.  Also  the  Moon's  attraction  would  be  less  upon  the 
the  farthest  side  of  the  Earth  from  the  Moon  than  upon  the 
Earth's  center,  because  the  distance  in  the  former  case  is 
greater  than  in  the  latter;  and  therefore  the  Earth's  center 
would  be  drawn  away  from  the  water  on  that  side,  which 
would  thus  bulge  away  from  the  Earth's  center  and  cause 
the  antitide.  At  a  first  glance  this  theory  may  seem  plaus- 
ible, but  closer  examination  shows  that  it  has  enormous  dif- 
ficulties to  surmount. 

44.  The  Tide-Raising  Force  Directly  Opposed  by  Terres- 
trial Gravity. — One  of  these  difficulties  is  the  attraction  of 
the  Earth  itself  upon  its  surface  waters.  By  Newton's  own 
computation,  this  attraction  holds  these  waters  to  the  Earth's 
center  with  a  force  or  power  more  than  twelve  million  times 
greater  than  the  alleged  force  would  pull  them  away  from  the 
Earth's  center.  Does  it  not  really  seem,  even  to  the  most 
casual  reader,  that  it  would  be  utterly  impossible  for  this 
very  minute  force  to  pull  the  waters  away  from  the  Earth's 
center,  in  direct  opposition  to  the  immensely  more  powerful 
force  holding  the  waters  to  that  center?  And  does  it  not 
really  seem,  also,  that  this  impossiblity  is  a  vital  objection 
to  the  current  tidal  theory? 

This  impossibility  appears  to  be  so  self-evident  and  ax- 
iomatic, that  it  is  really  difficult  to  present  the  objection  in 
plainer  words.  If,  however,  we  suppose  that  twelve  million 
horses  were  pulling  a  car  in  one  direction  and  a  single 
horse  pulling  it  in  the  other  direction,  it  would  be  very  plain 
to  us  that  the  car  would  not  move  in  the  direction  of  the 
single  horse.  Nor  would  the  case  be  altered  in  the  least,  if 
we  should  suppose  that  a  physical  obstruction,  aside  from 
the  single  horse,  prevented  the  car  from  moving  in  the  di- 
rection in  which  the  many  horses  pulled  it,  with  no  ob- 
struction whatever,  aside  from  the  many  horses,  to  prevent 
it  from  moving  in  the  direction  of  the  single  horse.  In  this 
last  case,  it  is  just  as  obvious  that  the  millions  of  horses 
would  hold  the  car  against  the  obstruction,  from  which, 
therefore,  it  would  be  quite  impossible  for  the  single  horse 


45]  THE    TIDES  65 

to  pull  it  away  in  his  own  direction.  Now  the  car  repre- 
sents the  water  on  the  Earth's  surface;  the  twelve  million 
horses  pulling  the  car  in  one  direction  represents  the  Earth's 
attraction  pulling  the  water  towards  the  Earth's  center;  the 
one  horse  pulling  the  car  in  the  opposite  direction  is  the 
difference  of  the  Moon's  attraction  upon  the  central  mass 
and  upon  either  side  of  the  Earth  in  the  line  of  the  two  bodies, 
pulling  the  water  from  the  Earth's  center;  and  the  obstruc- 
tion which  prevents  the  many  horses  from  moving  the  car 
in  their  direction  represents  the  solid  surface  crust  of  the 
Earth,  which  prevents  the  falling  of  the  water  towards  the 
Earth's  center. 

Is  it  reasonable,  then,  that  the  one  horse-power  can 
raise  the  water  in  the  least  degree  away  from  the  Earth's 
center  in  direct  opposition  to  the  united  pull  of  the  twelve 
million  horse-power  towards  the  Earth's  center?  This  ap- 
pears to  be  an  extremely  simple  mechanical  problem.  Yet, 
apparently  in  the  face  of  all  reason  and  experience,  the  the- 
ory of  gravitation  alleges  that  the  one  horse-power  actually 
pulls  the  water  from  the  obstruction  against  which  the  unit- 
ed strength  of  twelve  million  horse-power  is  continually 
holding  it. 

The  reasonable  view  of  the  case  would  seem  to  be  that 
the  one  unit  of  power  pulling  away  from  the  Earth's  center 
would  counteract  the  effect  of  one  of  the  twelve  million 
units  of  power  pulling  in  the  opposite  direction,  thus  leaving 
a  balance  of  11,999,999  units  of  power  pulling  towards  the 
Earth's  center.  But  while  this  would  diminish  the  pull  upon 
the  water  towards  the  latter  point  in  a  very  slight  degree, 
yet  very  obviously  the  water  would  still  be  held  almost  as 
strongly  as  ever  towards  that  point  with  nothing  at  all  now  to 
pull  it  away  therefrom. 

45.  The  Tides  Not  Raised  Where  the  Alleged  Tide-Rais- 
ing Force  Is  Applied.— While  the  absurdity  of  the  gravita- 
tional theory  of  the  origin  of  the  tidal  wave  is  thus  shown 
is  clearly,  it  seems,  as  anything  can  possibly  be  made,  yet 
this  absurdity  appears  still  more  glaring  owing  to  the  well- 


66  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY   OF    GRAVITATION  [45 

known  fact  that  the  actual  tidal  wave  rarely,  if  ever,  is  rais- 
ed, or  appears,  directly  upder  the  Moon,  but  generally  at  a 
portion  of  the  Earth's  surface  90°  from  that  at  which  the 
Moon  is  in  the  meridian.  Prof.  G..H.  Darwin  says:*  "If 
we  consider  the  moon  as  revolving  round  the  earth,  the 
water  assumes  nearly  the  shape  of  an  oblate  spheroid  with 
the  minor  axis  pointed  to  the  moon.  .  .  In  fact  observa- 
tion shows  that  it  is  more  nearly  low  water  than  high  water 
when  the  moon  is  on  the  meridian.  .  .  .  An  observer 
carried  round  with  the  earth  .  .  .  will  have  low  water 
twice  in  the  lunar  day,  somewhere  about  the  time  when  the 
moon  is  in  the  meridian,  either  above  or  below  the  horizon; 
and  high  water  half  way  between  the  low  waters. v 

Some  authorities  cannot  but  remark  on  the  incongruity  of 
this  undoubted  fact  with  the  theory.  One  Reviewer  (of 
"Moxley's  Theory  of  the  Tides,"  by  J.  F.  Ruthven)  says:| 
"The  author  seems  to  labor  under  some  misconception  of  the 
dynamical  theory  in  thinking,  for  instance,  that  it  implies 
impossible  ocean  currents  and  that  the  tidal  crest  must  be 
90°  behind  the  moon."  And  another  says:$  "It  is  perhaps 
disappointing  to  gather"  (from  Sir  G.  H.  Darwin's  "Scientific 
Papers")  "that  we  cannot  yet  with  any  confidence  make  any 
wide  generalizations  as  to  the  nature  of  the  tide-wave  in 
the  open  ocean." 

How  the  Moon's  attraction  can  thus  raise  the  waters  in 
a  direction  at  right  angles  to  its  own  and  where  no  tide- 
raising  force  whatever  theoretically  applies,  is  simply  in- 
explicable. It  would  seem  that  if  it  were  the  Moon's  attrac- 
tion that  raised  the  tidal  wave  directly  towards,  or  indirectly 
from,  itself,  in  the  open  sea  at  least  that  tidal  wave  would 
be  directly  underneath  the  Moon's  orb,  and  that,  if  for  any 
reason,  the  wave  were  delayed  a  considerable  distance  behind 
that  position,  it  would  gradually  die  out,  simply  on  account  of 
the  friction  it  has  to  encounter  and  the  absence  of  any  cause 
to  sustain  it  in  its  displaced  position.  But,  wonderful  to 

*Ency.   Britt.,   Art.    "Tides." 
fNature,  87,  478. 
JNature,  87,  449. 


46]  THE    TIDES  67 

relate,  we  have  it  on  the  authority  of  the  theory  of  gravita- 
tion that  the  tidal  wave  generated  by  the  transit  of  a  tide- 
producer  over  a  certain  meridian  of  the  tide-bearer  may  not 
itself  arrive  at  that  meridian  until  some  one  or  two  days 
have  elapsed  after  the  transit  which  caused  it!  "The  inter- 
val of  time  between  the  transit  of  the  moon  which  originates 
a  tide  and  the  appearance  of  the  tide  itself,  is  called  the 
age  or  retardation  of  the  tide.  .  .  The  age  of  the  tide  is,  from 
the  times,  391-2  hours,  from  the  heights,  421-2  hours.''* 

46.  The  Oceanic  Tides  Obliterated  by  Tides  in  the  Earth's 
Interior. — Another  vital  objection  to  the  present  theory  of 
the  tides  is  that,  according  to  the  generally  received  physical 
condition  of  the  Earth,  there  would  be  no  tides  at  all.  Strange 
as  this  may  appear,  it  is  nevertheless  true,  as  the  following 
considerations  go  to  prove.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the 
temperature  of  the  Earth's  crust  increases  about  1°  for  every 
50  to  60  feet  below  the  surface.  This  uniform  increase  of 
temperature  with  depth  is  found  at  all  points  of  the  surface 
without  respect  to  the  sea-level,  and  is  therefore  a  general 
characteristic  of  the  Earth's  crust.  This  temperature  gradient 
obviously  implies  a  constant  transfer  of  heat  from  warmer 
inner  strata  to  cooler  outer  strata  by  conduction;  according 
to  which,  difference  of  temperature  would  soon  disappear 
by  the  warmer  strata  cooling  off  if  there  were  not  a  con- 
stant supply  of  heat  within  the  Earth.  And  this  proves  that 
the  rise  of  temperature  thus  maintained  for  untold  millions 
of  years  is  not  merely  superficial,  but  continues  to  a  very 
great  depth.  Now  this  rate  of  increase  implies  a  temper- 
ature of  about  1,500°  at  a  depth  of  15  miles;  a  temperature 
sufficient  to  reduce  to  a  fluid  state  about  all  of  the  known  ma- 
terials which  form  the  solid  crust  of  the  globe.  The  appar- 
ently solid  Earth  on  which  we  live  is  therefore  a  comparative- 
ly thin  shell  of  solid  matter  inside  of  which  is  inclosed  the 
vast  bulk  of  the  Earth  in  a  molten  or  gaseous  state.  Many 
facts  are  observed  to  corroborate  tfiis  conclusion;  among 
which  are  boiling  springs,  earthquakes,  and  volcanoes;  the 
torrents  of  melted  rock  or  lava  from  the  latter  for  thousands 

*Orray  Taft   Sherman.      Prof.  Pap.  U.   S.   Sig.   Ser.,  No.   XI,   p.   28. 


68  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [47 

of  years  clearly  testifying  to  the  molten  condition  of  the 
Earth's  interior. 

But  how  is  this  state  of  things  to  be  reconciled  with  the 
present  theory  of  the  tides?  If  the  mterior  of  the  Earth  is 
in  a  molten  state,  it  is  very  clear  that,  in  accordance  with  the 
theory  of  gravitation,  a  tidal  swell  would  be  caused  there 
just  as  well  as  at  the  surface  of  the  crust.  This  tidal  swell 
would  cause  the  thin  crust  to  be  successively  elevated  and 
depressed;  and  these  successive  bendings  of  the  crust  would 
neutralize  the  effects  of  the  ocean  tides  because  the  bottom 
of  the  sea  would  be  raised  almost,  if  not  quite,  as  much  as 
its  surface,  and  the  depth  of  the  sea  would  thus  remain  un- 
changed, and  consequently  no  tide  would  be  observed. 

47.  Another  Tidal  Theory. — A  comparatively  new  theory, 
and  entirely  different  from  the  static  theory  of  Newton,  is 
given  by  Sir  Oliver  Lodge,  (Pioneers  of  Science,  p.  364)  and 
is  also  mentioned  by  Hastings  and  Beach,*  and  possibly  by 
others.  The  former  says: 

"Now  consider  the  earth  and  moon  revolving  round  each 
other.  .  .  .  It"  (the  Earth)  "revolves  around  the  common 
center  of  gravity  of  the  earth  and  moon.  This  is  a  vital 
point  in  the  comprehension  of  the  tides;  the  earth's  center 
is  not  at  rest,  but  is  being  whirled  round  by  the  moon,  in  a 
circle  about  1/80  as  big  as  the  circle  which  the  moon  describes. 
.  .  .  The  effect  of  the  revolution  is  to  make  both  bodies 
slightly  protrude  in  the  direction  of  the  line  joining  them. 
.  These  elongations  or  protuberances  constitute  the 
tides." 

Dr.  Lodge  ought  to  have  been  aware  that  his  second  last 
statement  above  is  directly  contradicted  by  Sir  G.  H.  Darwin, 
as  we  have  just  seen;  the  actual  protrusion  of  the  tides  being 
generally  in  a  line  at  right  angles  to  that  joining  the  Earth 
and  the  Moon.  Moreover  his  new  theory  described  above  he 
himself  directly  contradicts  when  he  says  (p.  357):  "The 
prime  cause  of  the  tiftes  is  undoubtedly  a  vertical  elevation 
of  the  ocean,  a  tidal  wave  or  hump  produced  by  the  attraction 
of  the  moon."  His  new  theory  does  not  depend  on  the  Moon's 

*  General  Physics,  p.  52. 


47]  THE    TIDES  69 

attraction  at  all,  but  on  the  centrifugal  force  of  the  Earth's 
surface  around  the  Earth-Moon  center  of  gravity. 

Another  statement  which  Dr.  Lodge  makes  (pp.  369-70)  is 

"the  moon  swings  the  earth  round  once  a  month,  the  sun 
swings  it  around  once  a  year.  The  circle  of  swing  is  bigger, 
but  the  speed  is  so  much  slower  that  the  protuberance  pro- 
duced is  only  one-third  of  that  caused  by  the  monthly  whirl; 
i.  e.,  the  simple  solar  tide  in  the  open  sea,  without  taking 
momentum  into  account,  is  but  a  little  more  than  a  foot  high 
while  the  simple  lunar  tide  is  about  three  feet." 

The  "speed"  to  which  Dr.  Lodge  refers  above  is  probably 
the  angular  speed,  for  the  actual  velocity  of  the  Earth  around 
the  Sun  is  about  a  thousand  times  its  velocity  around  the 
Earth-Moon  center;  moreover,  the  centrifugal  force  (which  is 
the  tide-raising  agency  in  Dr.  Lodge's  theory)  of  the  Earth's 
motion  around  the  Sun  is  about  seventy  times  that  of  the 
Earth's  motion  around  the  Earth-Moon  center;  so  that,  by 
his  theory,  the  solar  tide  should  be  seventy  times  that  of  the 
lunar. 

Absurd  as  this  theory  appears  to  be,  it  may  be  worth 
while  to  examine  it  further.  The  Earth-Moon  common  center 
of  gravity  would  be  about  7,000  miles  from  the  farthest,  and 
1,000  miles  from  the  nearest,  side  of  the  Earth  from  the 
Moon;  the  respective  circles  of  swing  being,  therefore,  44,- 
000  and  6,286  miles,  in  which  the  respective  speeds  per  sec- 
ond would  be  about  0.02  and  0.0026  mile.  And  the  respective 
'tide-raising1  forces  (according  to  Dr.  Lodge)  implied  by  these 
speeds  and  distances  would  be  (0.02)714,000  and  (0.0026)Y 
2,000,  or  0.0001584  ft.,and  0.0000185  ft.  per  second,  the  former 
being  over  eight  times  as  great  as  the  latter. 

It  is  true  that  these  tide-raising  forces,  if  real,  would  be 
vastly  greater  than  Newton's;  but  just  the  same  they  would 
be  directly  counteracted  by  the  Earth's  attraction,  which  is 
some  100,000  times  greater  than  the  larger.  However,  if 
the  particles  of  the  Earth's  surface  be  supposed  to  be  loose 
and  independent  of  one  another,  like  an  aggregation  of  me- 
teorites, then  a  particle  at  d  (in  diagram)  would  be  urged 
away  from  c  0.0001584  ft.  in  one  second,  as  previously  found. 


70  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [48 

But  at  e,  midway  between  d  and  a,  a  particle  would  move 
away  from  c  some  41  feet  in  each  second.  The  velocity  per 
second  at  e  around  the  Earth-Moon  center  at  b  would  be 
about  0.013  mile,  and  if  this  be  directed  at  right  angles  to 
the  radius  vector,  be,  as  in  other  circular  motions,  the  mo- 
mentary path  would  incline  some  38.5°  upwards  from  the 
horizon,  and  the  vertical  component  of  the  0.013  mile  would 
be  0.0078  mile,  or  41  feet — which  certainly  would  be  some 
tide.  At  f,  however,  the  conditions  would  be  reversed,  the 
momentary  path,  being  at  right  angles  to  bf,  now  points  in- 
wards to  c,  so  that  at  the  point  f,  by  Dr.  Lodge's  theory,  the 


water  particles  would  b«  depressed  41  feet  per  second.  Here 
would  be  some  prolateness,  though  in  a  direction  at  right 
angles  to  that  stated  by  Dr.  Lodge.  One  immense  tide  and 
one  immense  depression  in  each  lunar  day,  compared  with 
which  all  other  tides  and  depressions  would  sink  into  in- 
significance. Not  even  terrestrial  gravity  itself  could  cope 
with  such  a  tide-raising  force — and  so  we  leave  it  in  the  sole 
charge  and  guidance  of  its  sponsors. 

48.  The  Solar  Tide. — Of  all  doctrines  now  or  hitherto 
ever  taught  of  which  there  remains  any  record,  probably 
none  has  been  so  universally  received  and  accepted  as  that 
the  Moon  is  the  chief  cause  of  our  terrestial  ocean  tides. 
And  no  wonder,  for  the  tides  always  follow  the  Moon's  mo- 
tion around  the  Earth.  In  the  words  of  Prof.  Young:* 

"The  average  interval  between  successive  high  waters  be- 
ing 24h.  51m.,  which  is  precisely  the  same  as  the  average  in- 
terval between  two  successive  passages  of  the  moon  across 
the  meridian.  This  coincidence  maintained  indefinitely,  of 

*Gen.  Astron.  Art.  462. 


48]  THE    TIDES  71 

itself  makes  it  certain  that  there  must  be  some  casual  con- 
nection between  the  moon  and  the  tides.  As  some  one  has 
said,  the  odd  51  minutes  is  the'  moon's  'earmark.'  " 

What,  then,  must  be  thought  of  the  statement  here  to  be 
made  that,  although  the  casual  connection  of  the  Moon  with 
the  tides  is  admitted,  the  Sun  is  the  chief  tide-producer  and 
not  the  Moon?  Yet  incredible  as  this  statement  may  seem, 
and  however  inconsistent  with  the  theory  of  gravitation, 
there  is  not  a  little  evidence  in  favor  of  it.  There  would 
no  doubt  be  a  great  deal  more  evidence  in  favor  of  it,  if 
such  were  not  probably  considered  as  worthless  because  con- 
tradictory of  a  doctrine  universally  accepted  as  true.  Much 
of  the  evidence  here  advanced  must  have  seen  the  light  by 
mere  accident.  (See  analecta,  chapter  XI,  part  II). 

If  the  Moon  is  the  chief  cause  of  the  ocean  tides,  why 
is  it  not  the  chief  cause  of  the  aerial  tides?  We  know  from 
actual  observation  that  there  are  two  maxima  and  two  min- 
ima of  barometric  pressure,  the  former  at  about  10  a.  m.  and 
10  p.  m.  and  the  latter  between  these,  all  over  the  Earth's 
torrid  and  temperate  zones;  and  these  variations  of  pressure 
are  due  solely  to  the  Sun.  Dr.  Julius  Hann* quotes  this  pass- 
age from  "Herschel's  Meteorology,"  p.  163: 

"Colonel  Sykes  remarks  that  among  many  thousand  obser- 
vations taken  personally  by  himself  on  the  plateau  of  the 
Deccan  (1825-1830),  there  was  not  a  solitary  instance  in 
which  the  barometer  was  not  higher  at  9  or  10  a.  m.  than 
at  sunrise  and  lower  at  4  or  5  p.  m.  than  at  9  or  10  a.  m., 
whatever  the  state  of  the  weather  might  be." 

Dr.  Hann  also  quotes  from  Humboldt:f 

"This  regularity  is  such  that,  in  the  daytime  especially, 
we  may  infer  the  hour  from  the  height  of  the  column  of  mer- 
cury without  being  in  error  on  an  average  more  than  15  or 
16  minutes.  In  the  torrid  zone  of  the  new  continent  I  have 
found  the  regularity  of  this  ebb  and  flow  of  the  aerial  ocean 
undisturbed  either  by  storm,  tempest,  rain  or  earthquake, 
both  on  the  coasts  and  at  elevations  of  nearly  13,000  feet 
above  the  level  of  the  sea." 

Now  it  cannot  be  the  Sun's  heat  during  the  day  and  the 

*Smith.  Kept.,   1877,   p.   394. 
tTome  I,  p.  308. 


72  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [49 

absence  of  the  Sun's  heat  during  the  night  that  cause  these 
aerial  tides  because  the  effects  in  the  day  and  in  the  night 
are  almost  exactly  aHke,  having  a^  maximum  and  a  minimum 
in  each,  and  because  in  the  Arctic  and  the  Antarctic  regions 
where  the  days  and  nights  are  months  long,  it  occurs  with 
the  same  regularity.  There  is  a  small  factor  attributable  to 
to  the  Sun's  heat,  but  it  is  easily  separable  from  the  other 
factor.  M.  A.  Angot  of  the  French  Meteorological  Office  has 
done  this;  but  the  main  part  remains  either  unaccountable  or 
attributable  to  the  Sun.* 

The  amplitude  of  the  solar  diurnal  tide  is  given  by  Mr. 
R.  A.  Curtis  t  as  one-tenth  inch  in  the  tropics,  gradually  de- 
creasing to  1/30  inch  in  the  British  Isles  and  similar  lati- 
tudes* while  the  maximum  amplitude  of  the  lunar  tide  is 
given  by  M.  Boquet  de  la  Grye  as  1/50  inch  at  Brest!  and 
by  Prof.  F.  A.  R.  Russel  as  0.003  to  0.004  mch.§ 

It  is  unnecessary  to  go  into  further  detail  to  show  that 
the  aerial  tide  ascribable  to  the  Sun  is  considerably  greater 
than  that  ascribable  to  the  Moon.  The  subject  will  be  fur- 
ther considered  with  the  new  tidal  theory,  Art.  147. 

49.  Inland  Sea  and  Lake  Tides. — Upon  lakes  and  inland 
seas,  tides  would  be  produced  by  only  one  of  the  two  tide- 
producers  when  they  are  about  90°  apart,  because  the  area 
of  the  water  surface  is  so  small  that  when  one  body  would 
be  in  a  position  to  produce  a  tide  upon  it,  the  tide-raising 
effect  of  the  .other  body  would  be  shut  out  by  the  land  surface 
surrounding  the  water.  If  the  Moon  were  the  chief  agent  in 
raising  the  tides  on  the  waters  of  the  Earth,  it  should  be  an 
easy  matter  to  prove  it  in  these  cases.  Let  us  see  what 
really  happens. 

M.  Heraud  read  a  paper  before  the  Paris  Academy  of 
Sciences,  Aug.  8,  1887,  on  "The  Tides  of  the  Tunisian  Coast," 
partly  as  follows: 

*  Nature,  41,  449. 

tNature,  61,  119. 

tNature,  51,   516. 

§  Smith.  Miscel.  Coll.,  No.  1072, 


49]  THE    TIDES  73 

"The  observations  made  during  the  hydrographic  survey 
of  the  coast  have  enabled  the  author  to  study  the  tidal  move- 
ment, the  existence  of  which  on  the  Gulf  of  Gabes  and  on 
the  adjacent  seaboard  has  long  been  demonstrated.  These 
tides  appear  to  be  the  most  regular  and  important  in  the 
whole  Mediterranean  basin.  >  .  ».  They  continually  in- 
crease in  magnitude  as  far  as  Gabes,  where  they  acquire  a 
maximum  of  2  metres  at  the  mean  spring  tides,  thence  de- 
creasing to  1  metre  at  Zarzis  on  the  Tripoli  Coast.  The  tidal 
wave  appears  to  come  from  the  east,  the  mean  period  being 
apparently  about  24  hours.  All  the  observed  circumstances 
would  seem  to  show  that  the  relation  of  tine  lunar  to  the 
solar  wave  is  less  than  the  absolute  actions  of  the  sun  and; 
moon."* 

Regarding  the  tide  in  the  great  lakes,  some  writer  in  the 
Milwaukee  (Wis.)  Sentinel  of  Aug.  17,  1892,  says  of  the  tides 
at  Green  Bay,  Wis.: 

"The  tides  come  in  the  morning  and  evening  and  are  high- 
est at  7  a.  m.  and  7  p.  m.  From  3  until  7  in  the  morn- 
ing the  tide  gradually  comes  in.  After  that  time  it  begins 
to  recede  and  is  at  its  lowest  between  11  and  2:30.  At  the 
latter  hour  the  evening  tide  commences  and  it  rises  contin- 
ually until  7  m  the  evening,  when  it  begins  to  recede.  The 
height  of  the  tide  varies  at  times  a  trifle,  but  it  is  never  less 
than  5  inches  and  seldom  over  8  inches  under  ordinary  cir- 
cumstances. .  .  .  The  tide  comes  night  and  morning, 
whatever  the  direction  of  the  wind  and  whether  the  water  is 
high  or  low  .  .  .  Green  Bay  is  shaped  not  unlike  the 
Bay  of  Fundy,  where  the  tides  on  the  Atlantic  rise  to  enor- 
mous heights.  It  is  not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  a  tide 
from  a  half  inch  or  an  inch  from  the  wide  stretch  of  waters 
east  and  west,  reaching  several  hundred  miles  from  Georg- 
ian Bay  across  Lake  Huron,  through  the  wide  straits  of 
Mackinac,  across  the  foot  of  Lake  Michigan  and  up  the  long, 
narrow  bay,  would  be  compressed  so  as  to  be  at  least  per- 
ceptible." 

An  answer  to  this,  two  or  three  days  later,  stated  that 
scientists  also  had  observed  the  tide  on  Lake  Michigan,  but 
said  not  one  word  about  its  daily  occurence. 

Tides  also  appear  sometimes  in  under-ground  waters. 
"A  self-recording  gage  was  set  up  in  an  unused  well"  (near 
Tokio,  Japan).  "This  showed  that  the  water  in  the  well 
rose  and  fell  1-4  to  1-2  inch  twice  every  24  hours. "t  And 

*Nature,  36,  383. 

tJchn    Milne,    Nature,    53,    182. 


74  OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [49 

Dr.  O.  Hoist  of  the  Geological  Survey  of  Sweden  states 
that  "one  of  the  Australian  geologists"  found  a  tidal  action 
of  the  ground  water  in  the  sandy  regions  of  the  interior  of 
Australia.  "The  water  rises  and  falls  at  regular  daily  inter- 
vals and  the  oscillations  appear  to  be  too  great  to  be  explain- 
ed as  resulting  from  the  daily  variations  in  atmospheric 
pressure."* 

Even  in  the  open  ocean  "the  relative  part  played  by  the 
sun  and  moon,  as  deduced  from  gravitational  formulae  does 
not  quite  agree  with  the  observed  phenomena  of  the  daily 
tides.  It  is  believed  by  many  that  the  ordinary  lunar  tide 
affecting  mainly  the  oceanic  envelope,  is  complicated  by  the 
presence  of  a  terrene  tide  largely  influenced  by  the  sun,  and 
that  the  earth  does  to  an  appreciable  extent  yield  twice  in 
the  twenty-four  hours  to  the  deforming  force  of  solar  gravita- 
tion."! 

And  still  another  witness,  the  humble  polyp,  Alcyonium, 
appears  to  tell  the  story  of  the  Sun  as  the  chief  arbiter  of  his 
ocean  home.  "During  the  first  two  or  three  days  after  Al- 
cyonium  is  placed  in  the  tank,  it  contracts  completely  with 
tolerable  regularity  twice  in  every  twenty-four  hours.  .  .  . 
These  experiments  seem  to  prove  that  Alcyonium  contracts 
normally  twice  in  every  twenty-four  hours,  and  that  the 
rythm  of  these  contractions  continues  for  some  time  after 
it  is  removed  from  the  action  of  the  tides."* 

See  also  Art.  153  for  further  evidence  in  this  connection. 

*Nature,    57,    86. 

tThos.  W.  Kingsmill;  Nature,  47,  30. 

JS.    J.    Hickscn;    Phil.    Soc.    Cambridge,    Feb.    22,    1892. 


CHAPTER  V 


AMOUNT  AND  DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  SUN'S  HEAT 


Knowest  thou  the  ordinances  of  heaven?  Canst  thou  set 
the  dominion  thereof  in  the  earth? — JOB,  38,  33. 

Any  given  generalization  from  observatioin  may  be  true, 
within  the  limits  of  our  powers  of  observation  at  a  given  time, 
and  yet  turn  out  to  be  untrue  when  these  powers  of  obser- 
vaion  are  directly  or  indirectly  enlarged.  Or,  to  put  the  mat- 
ter in  another  way,  a  doctrine  which  is  untrue  absolutely,  may, 
to  a  very  great  extent,  be  susceptible  of  an  interpretation 
in  accordance  with  the  truth.— PROP.  HUXLEY. 

I  think  in  that  respect  he  is  of  my  mind,  that  we  are  all 
liable  to  error,  but  that  we  love  truth,  and  speak  only  what 
at  the  time  we/ think  to  be  the  truth;  and  ought  not  to  take 
offense  when  proved  to  be  in  error,  since  the  error  is  not  in- 
tentional; but  be  a  little  humbled  and  so  turn  the  correction 
of  the  error  to  good  account. — FAKADAY. 

50.  Temperature  of  the  Sun's  Surface. — The  theory  of 
gravitation  teaches  that  the  Sun's  heat  and  light  and  force 
of  attraction  radiate  out  equally  in  all  directions  in  space, 
diminished  only  as  the  inverse  square  of  the  distance.  The 
quantity  of  solar  heat  which  would  be  intercepted  by  the 
Earth,  therefore,  would  be  such  a  part  of  the  whole  heat 
radiated  from  the  Sun  as  the  apparent  angular  area  of  the 
Earth  as  viewed  from  the  Sun's  center  is  of  the  area  of  the 
whole  sky.  Now  the  angular  diameter  of  the  Earth,  as  it 
would  be  seen  from  the  Sun  is  only  about  17  seconds;  and  as 
similar  areas  are  to  each  other  as  the  squares  of  their  di- 
mensions, the  angular  area  of  the  Earth,  viewed  from  the 
Sun,  will  be  to  that  of  the  whole  sky  as  (17)2  is  to  2(180X 
60X60)2,  or  about  as  1  to  2,900,000,000;*  so  that  only  about 
1/2,900,000,000  of  the  heat  radiated  from  the  Sun  falls  upon 

*Dr.  J.  R.   Mayer  in  his  Beitrage  xur  Dynamik  des  Himmela  makes 
the   amount    of  solar   heat   intercepted   by   the   Earth    1/2,300,000,000    of 
the   whole    amount   radiated    into    space.      Tyndal   makes    it    the    same    as 
Mayer,   Fragments  of  Science,    "On   Force." 


76  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [50 

the  Earth.  Then  as  the  Sun's  angular  diameter  from  the 
Earth  is  about  31  minutes  of  arc,  the  Sun's  area  as  compared 
with  that  of  the  Earth  will  be  about  as  (31X60)2  to  (17)2,  or 
about  as  12,000  to  1.  Therefore  the  heat  radiated  from  a 
certain  area  of  the  Sun,  as  a  square  inch  or  a  square  yard, 
is  2,900,000,000/12,000,  or  about  240,000  times  greater  than 
that  which  is  received  from  the  Sun  upon  an  equal  area  on 
the  Earth.  The  Earth's  temperature  is  supposed  to  be  about 
300°C.  above  absolute  zero,*  and,  as  the  heat  from  an  equal 
area  on  the  Sun  is  about  240,000  times  greater,  the  Sun's 
temperature  ought  to  be  about  300°X240,000  or  72,000,000°C. 
above  absolute  zero.  This  is  about  the  same  reasoning  as 
Newton's  regarding  this  subject;  and  the  result  above  ob- 
tained is  of  the  same  order  as  Newton's  result.  This  would 
make  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  the  Sun  so  extremely 
heated  that  all  known  substances  traversing  it  would  be  re- 
duced to  vapor.  Therefore,  when  the  comet  of  1680  passed 
so  close  to  the  Sun,  as  to  almost  graze  its  atmosphere,  New- 
ton was  very  much  surprised  indeed  when  that  body,  which 
remained  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  the  Sun  for 
many  hours,  brushed  around  the  great  luminary  without  un- 
dergoing the  slightest  noticeable  change,  although,  according 
to  his  own  computation,  the  comet  must  have  been  subjected 
during  that  time  to  a  degree  of  heat  2,000  times  that  of  red- 
hot  iron. 

Whether  this  circumstance  staggered  his  belief  in  the 
extremely  elevated  temperp.ture  which,  according  to  his  the- 
ory, he  had  deduced  for  the  Sun,  or  not,  it,  together  with 
many  other  circumstances,  certainly  staggered  others  in 
that  belief,  and  as  a  consequence  there  are  today  probably  a 
score  of  different  estimates  of  the  Sun's  temperature  from 
several  million  degrees  down  to  as  low  as  3,000.  On  this 
subject,  Prof.  J.  Norman  Lockyer  says: 

"The  values  that  have  been  suggested  by  various  men  of 
science  vary  between  18,000,000°  and  3,000".  You  may  take 
your  choice.  The  fac*  is  I  think,  that  we  are  not  yet  in  a 
position  to  find  out  the  very  best  method  of  determining  the 

*Prof.   J.   H.   Poynting,   Address  B.   A.    1904. 


51]         AMOUNT   AND   DISTRIBUTION   OF   THE    SUN'S   HEAT          Tl 

temperature  and  thus  marking  it  down  in  a  perfect  manner, 
for  the  reason  that  the  more  one  knows  about  the  problem, 
the  more  one  sees  how  terribly  complicated  it  is."* 

In  the  Scientific  American  Supplement,  No.  259,  p.  4132, 
Mr.  Robt.  Ward  summarizes  in  chronogical  order  of  publi- 
cation the  solar  temperatures  in  degrees  centigrade  found 
by  various  investigators  as  follows: 

"Newton,  1,669,300°;  Pouillet,  1,461°;  Zollner,  102,200°; 
Secchi,  5,344,840°;  Ericsson,  2,726,700°;  Fizeau,  7,500°;  Wa- 
terston,  9,000,000°;  Spoerer,  27,000°;  H.  St.  Claire  Deville, 
9,500°;  Soret,  5,801,846°;  Vicaire,  1,398";  Violle,  1,500°;  Kos- 
etti,  20,000°.  .  .  .  There  probably  does  not  exist  in  science 
a  more  astonishing  contradiction  than  is  revealed  in  these 
figures."! 

To  overcome  the  difficulty,  a  law  bearing  the  name  of 
Stefan's,  was  published  about  1881,  which  assumes  that  ra- 
diation increases  as  the  fourth  power  of  the  tempera  ture.J 
This  would  make  the  Sun's  temperature  about  5,000°  or 
6,000'  centigrade  above  absolute  zero,  which  from  the  spec- 
troscopic  evidence  of  variations  of  wavelength  and  width  of 
spectral  lines  in  varying  temperatures,  is  probably  not  far 
from  the  fact. 

But  what  is  the  physical  justification  of  Stefan's  law? 
Apparently  nothing  more  than  that  the  single  instance  of  the 
Sun's  radiation  seems  to  demand  it.  The  radiation  of  heated 
bodies  upon  the  Earth's  surface  appears  to  be  strictly  accord- 
ing to  Newton's  law;  and  why,  or  where,  a  change  should  take 
place  between  the  Earth  and  the  Sun  from  the  one  law  to  the 
other,  no  cause  whatever  is  assignable. 

51.  Unvarying  Quantity  of  Solar  Heat  at  Various  Dis- 
tances from  the  Sun. — Another  serious  conflict  of  actual 
observation  with  the  theory  is  found  in  the  cons/tancy  of  the 
amount  of  solar  heat  which  falls  upon  the  Earth  at  various 
distances  from  the  Sun.  It  is  well-known  that  the  Earth 
is  some  three  millions  of  miles  nearer  to  the  Sun  in  January 
than  in  July.  According  to  the  theory  of  gravitation,  it  is 
shown  by  Sir  John  Herschel  that  "the  least  variation  of 

*Nature,   33,   402. 

fA  similar  summary  is  given  by  Prof.  Young,  Gen.  Astron.,  Art.  351. 

tNature,    51,    33 


78  OBJECTIONS    TO   THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [52 

temperature  under  such  circumstances  which  can  be  reason- 
ably attributed  to  the  actual  variation  of  the  Sun's  distance 
is  23 °F."*  The  summers  of  the  Southern  Hemisphere,  there- 
fore, should  be  at  least  23°  hotter  than  ours  on  the  average, 
and  the  winters  of  the  Southern  Hemisphere  colder  than 
ours  by  the  same  difference.  Yet  Sir  William  Thomson 
tells  us|  that  "neither  at  the  equator  nor  in  the  southern  or 
northern  hemisphere  has  this  difference  been  discovered 
by  experience  or  general  observation  of  any  kind."  This  is 
certainly  vital  evidence,  and  it  goes  remarkably  direct  against 
the  theory  of  gravitation. 

52.  Amount  of  Solar  Heat  Falling  Upon  Either  Pole  of 
the  Earth  During  Its  Summer  Season  Greater  Than  That 
Upon  a  Point  at  the  Equator. — In  still  another  instance  is 
the  amount  of  sunheat  which  would  be  received  upon  the 
Earth  in  accordance  with  the  theory  of  gravitation,  glaringly 
at  variance  with  the  observed  facts.  That  the  temperature 
of  the  North  Frigid  Zone  during  our  summer  is  a  great  deal 
lower  than  at  the  Equator,  is  so  commonplace  a  fact  that  It 
seems  puerile  to  mention  it.  Yet  we  have  it  upon  the  author- 
ity of  Dr.  Zenker,  in  a  work  which  has  been  awarded  a  prize 
by  the  Paris  Academy,  that,  "leaving  the  air  out  of  account, 
as  has  usually  been  the  case,  .  .  .  the  heat  received  by 
the  Pole  on  a  summer  day  is  greater  than  that  which  falls  on 
a  point  at  the  equator.  Thus,  taking  as  unit  the  heat  re- 
ceived during  twenty-four  hours  by  a  place  at  which  the  sun 
is  in  the  zenith,  the  North  Pole  receives  an  amount  of  heat 
represented  by  0.397,  and  a  point  at  the  equator  an  amount 
represented  by  0.292."J 

In  other  words,  there  would  fall  upon  the  North  Pole,  ac- 
cording to  the  present  theory,  an  amount  of  solar  heat  great- 
er by  over  one-third  than  that  which  would  fall  upon  a  point 
at  the  Equator!  Paradoxical  as  this  may  at  first  Bight  ap- 
pear, it  readily  admits  of  a  simple  explanation.  For,  during 

*Outlines  of  Astronomy,  Art.  369  a. 
tNature,    35,    29'/. 
JNature,    37,    552. 


52]         AMOUNT  AND   DISTRIBUTION   OF   THE    SUN'S   HEAT          79 

our  summer  season,  the  Sun's  rays  are  at  no  time  perpen- 
dicular to  the  Equator,  the  average  inclination  of  these  rays 
to  a  point  upon  the  equatorial  surface  while  exposed  to  the 
^olar  heat  being  considerably  more  than  half  as  great  as  the 
average  inclination  to  the  polar  surface;  and  also  the  equator- 
ial surface  receives  the  Sun's  rays  for  half  of  every  twenty- 
four  hours,  while  the  polar  surface  receives  the  Sun/s  rays 
during  the  entire  summer  without  intermission.  V/hy,  then, 
is  it  not  warmer  at  the  polar  regions  than  at  the  equatorial 
regions,  to  correspond  with  the  greater  amount  of  solar  heat 
which  theoretically  falls  upon  the  former  place?  Some  are 
inclined  to  think  that  the  reason  is,  the  Sun's  rays,  which  fall 
upoi.  the  Pole,  having  the  greater  inclination,  and  consequent- 
Jy  having  to  pass  through  the  greater  thickness  of  atmos- 
phere, would  be  more  absorbed  by  the  air  before  reaching 
that  surface.  But  this  view  is  open  to  the  objection  that  the 
absorption  and  accumulation  of  the  solar  heat  by  the  atmos- 
phere is  the  very  thing  that  raises  the  temperature  at  the 
Earth's  surface;  for  if  there  were  no  atmosphere  at  all  to 
absorb  and  retain  the  Sun's  heat,  the  temperature  of  the 
Earth's  surface  would  be  some  hundreds  of  degrees  below 
zero,  even  under  a  vertical  Sun.  An  excellent  authority  on 
this  subject  says : 

"Although  the  actual  solar  radiation  is  thus  largely  in- 
creased, yet  the  temperature  of  the  Earth's  surface  is  not 
due  principally  to  this  direct  radiation,  but  to  the  quality  of 
selective  absorption  in  our  atmosphere,  without  which  the 
temperature  of  tW,e  soil  in  the  tropics  under  a  vertical  surf 
would  probably  not  rise  above  — 200°  C.  Nearly  all  the  215 
or  more  degrees  of  difference  between  this  and  the  actual 
mean  temperature  of  the  planet's  surface  is  due  to  this  se- 
lective absorption,  which  accumulates  the  heat,  though  in  a 
manner  which  has  not  been  hitherto  correctly  understood. 
It  should  be  understood  that  these  researches  have  had  a 
practical  bearing  of  great  consequence.  The  temperature 
of  this  planet,  and  with  it  the  existence  not  only  of  the  hu- 
man race,  but  of  all  organized  life  on  the  globe  appears,  in 
the  light  of  the  conclusions  reached  by  the  Mount  Whitney 
expedition,  to  depend  far  less  on  the  direct  solar  heat  than 


80  OBJECTIONS    TO    THJE    THEORY   OF    GRAVITATION  [52 

on  the  hitherto  too  little  regarded  quality  of  selective  ab- 
sorption in  our  atmosphere  which  we  are  now  studying."* 

From  this  it  seems  quite  clear,  then,  that  the  greater  the 
amount  of  heat  which  was  absorbed  by  the  amosphere  of 
a  region,  the  warmer  the  temperature  of  that  region  ought  tt 
be.  For  the  same  writer  adds :  "Generally  speaking,  the 
radiation  that  we  see  enter,  we  see  escape  within  the  utmost 
limit  ol  the  known  solar  spectrum";  according  to  which  the 
radiation  which  the  atmosphere  absorbs  and  stores  up  is 
all  that  remains  and  is  very  obviously  that  to  which  almost 
alone  the  surface  temperature  is  due. 

Still  another  explanation  of  the  low  temperature  of  the 
polar  regions  as  compared  with  the  temperature  of  the 
equatorial  regions,  in  spite  of  the  greater  amount  of  solar 
radiation  and  atmospheric  absorption  at  the  former  which 
the  theory  implies — is  that,  in  these  regions,  the  ice  and  snow 
reflect  the  heat  falling  upon  them  to  a  much  greater  extent 
than  the  land  surface  of  the  equatorial  regions  does.  It  is 
unnecessary  to  discuss  all  the  objections  that  could  be  made 
to  this  explanation.  An  insuperable  objection  to  it  is  in- 
volved in  the  single  question — If  there  is  a  greater  solar  ra- 
diation and  atmospheric  absorption  at  the  polar  regions,  than 
there  is  at  the  lower  temperate  and  tropical  latitudes,  as 
Dr.  Zenker  apparently  shows,  why  is  not  the  snow  and  ice 
melted  away  at  the  former  place  as  it  is  in  the  latter  upon 
the  approach  of  the  summer  season?  In  latitude  40°,  e.  g., 
tracts  of  country  fully  as  large  as  Greenland  are  frequently 
covered  with  ice  and  snow;  yet  a  very  few  warm  days  of 
spring,  not  to  mention  summer  at  all,  is  sufficient  to  melt 
it  all  away;  while  the  ice  and  snow  of  Greenland,  where  the 
amount  of  solar  radiation  is  theoretically  much  greater,  scarce- 
ly melts  at  all!  It  is  true  that  a  considerable  amount  of  ice 
and  snow  accumulate  in  the  Arctic  regions  during  our  winter; 
but  it  is  equally  true  that,  if  all  the  ice  and  snow  of  Green- 
land were  removed  down  to  latitude  40°  and  spread  over  that 
country  to  the  same  depth,  it  would  all  melt  away  during 

*Prof.  S.  P.  Langley.  Researches  on  Solar  Heat,  Prof.  Papers  No.  XV, 
U.  S.  Sig.  Service,  p.  215. 


53]        AMOUNT   AND   DISTRIBUTION   OF   THE    SUN'S  HEAT          81 

a  single  month  of  summer* ;  and  yet  according  to  the  current 
theory,  a  much  less  amount  of  solar  heat  is  available  to  melt 
the  ice  and  snow  in  latitude  40°  than  in  northern  Greenland. 
53.  The  Sun's  Heat  on  Mars. — By  the  theory  of  gravita- 
tion, Mars  should  receive  only  two-fifths  as  much  solar  heat 
as  the  Earth.  And  we  have  it  on  the  authority  of  Prof. 
Newcombf  that  a  "diminution  of  the  solar  heat  by  one- 
fourth  of  its  amount  would  probably  make  our  Earth  so  cold 
that  all  the  water  on  its  surface  would  freeze."  This  "means 
that  if  the  earth  were  now  15.5  per  cent  farther  away 
from  the  sun,  there  would  be  no  water  and  no  life,  only  ice." 
But  Mars  is  more  than  50  per  cent  farther  from  the  Sun 
than  the  Earth  is,  and  therefore  ought  to  be,  by  the  theory 
of  gravitation,  much  colder  still  than  if  only  15.5  per  cent 
farther.  Yet  we  read  that  its  temperature  is  equal  to,  if  not 
higher  than,  that  of  the  Earth,  and  its  polar  snows  melt  per- 
iodically to  a  far  greater  extent  than  on  our  planet.  $ 

"The  observation  left  no  doubt  on  my  mind  that  Mars 
had  an  atmosphere  like  our  own;  that  its  temperature  did 
not  vary  many  degrees  from  our  own;  that  there  were  land 
surfaces  and  water  surfaces;  clouds  and  very  obvious  cloud 
drift;  polar  snows  which  melted  with  marvelous  rapidity  as 
the  perihelion  sun  made  its  full  strength  felt."§ 

Much  more  might  be  given  from  the  writings  of  Prof. 
Very  and  Percival  Lowell,  the  latter  having  made  the  study 
of  this  planet  specially  his  own;  how  they  discovered  water- 
vapor  lines  in  the  Martian  spectrum;  have  seen  the  blueness 
of  the  water  issuing  from  the  rapidly  melting  polar  ice-fields; 
and  the  appearance  of  canals  and  change  of  color  due  to 
consequent  upspringing  vegetation  and  foliage.  Prof.  Very 

*Langley  computes  from  his  researches  that  the^  solar  heat  upon  the 
outer  limits  of  our  atmosphere  is  such  as  would  melt  an  ice-sheet  178 
feet  thick  annually  over  the  entire  surface  of  the  Earth;  and  he  further 
finds  that  only  one-third  of  this  heat  is  absorbed  by  the  atmosphere  from 
a  vertical  Sun.  Of  course  then,  a  much  greater  thickness  of  ice  would 
actually  be  melted  at  the  Equator  during  even  a  single  summer,  because 
the  temperature  there  is  much  above  the  average  temperature  of  the 
Earth's  surface;  and,  theoretically,  a  still  greater  thickness  should  be 
melted  at  the  Pole  daring  the  same  time  because  a  greatei  amount  of  solar 
radiation  theoretically  falls  and  is  retained  there. 

tPopular<  Astronomy,  p.  523. 

JM.    Flammarion;    Nature,    38,    263. 

§,T.  Norman  Lockyer;   Nature,  46,  445. 


82  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY   OP    GRAVITATION  [54 

says:*  "Mars  has  a  rather  rare  atmosphere  but  a  climate 
of  the  continental  type  giving  it  warm  summers."  But  as 
we  have  just  seen  in  the  preceding  article,  the  rareness  of 
the  atmosphere  is  a  very  great  handicap  to  a  warm  temper- 
ature, the  warmth  of  the  planet  existing,  not  because  of  it, 
but  in  spite  of  it. 

It  is  true  that  Prof.  Alfred  Russel  Wallace,  Prof.  Camp- 
bell of  Lick  Observatory,  and  a  few  others,  question,  to  some 
extent,  the  results  of  the  investigations  of  Lowell  and  Very. 
This,  however,  is  only  natural  when  these  results  are  so 
astoninshingly  at  variance  with  the  generally  accepted  the- 
ory. But,  nevertheless,  the  great  preponderance  of  scientific 
authority  cannot  but  support  the  conclusions  of  Lowell,  how- 
ever contradictory  of  the  current  theory.  The  melting  of 
1,600,000  square  miles  (a  tract  about  as  large  as  India)  of 
polar  snow-fields  in  33  days,  observed  by  Prof.  Pickering  at 
the  opposition  of  1892, t  together  with  the  seasonal  regularity 
of  the  snow-caps'  dissolution,  one  alternating  with  the  other 
invariably  at  about  the  same  intervals,  just  as  on  the  Earth, 
could  not  but  impress  the  fact  of  even  a  warmer  climate  upon 
Mars  than  that  of  the  Earth,  on  most  unbiased  minds,  regard- 
less of  the  fact  that  not  one  logical  reason  can  be  assigned 
to  alleviate  the  apparently  fatal  contradiction  of  the  theory 
of  gravitation  by  these  actually  observed  facts.  Many  minds 
are  only  stupefied  and  dumfounded  by  this  hopeless  contra- 
diction, and  keep  silent  regarding  it,  though  naturally,  of 
course,  still  clinging  to  the  old  theory  which  is  so  signally 
discredited  by  it. 

54.  Direct  Contradiction  of  the  Theory  by  the  Facts. — It 
follows,  therefore,  that  both  the  temperature  of  the  Sun's 
surface  and  the  distribution  of  the  solar  radiation,  which  the 
current  theory  clearly  involves,  is  emphatically  contradicted 
by  actual  observation.  The  degree  of  heat  at  the  Sun's  sur- 
face which  that  theory  undoubtedly  implies  is,  in  the  first 
place,  almost  inconceivably  great;  in  the  second  place,  it  is 
belied  by  the  presence  of  black  spots  on  the  Sun's  surface, 

*Science,  37,   952. 
t  Nature,   81,   337. 


54]         AMOUNT   AND   DISTRIBUTION   OF   THE   SUN'S  HEAT          83 

which  are  generally  admitted  to  be  formed  by  the  down-rush 
of  cooled,  solid  particles,  whereas  the  theoretical  temper- 
ature of  the  Sun  is  such  as  would  almost  instantly  dissolve 
all  known  substances  into  vapor,  even  at  a  distance  of  mil- 
lions of  miles  from  the  Sun's  surface;  in  the  third  place,  it 
is  belied  by  the  impunity  with  which  the  comet  of  1680  passed 
through  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  the  Sun;  in  the 
fourth  place,  it  is  belied  by  comparison  with  known  tem- 
peratures upon  the  Earth's  surface;  in  the  fifth  place,  the 
distribution  of  the  solar  heat  which  the  theory  involves  is 
belied  by  the  utter  absence  of  those  very  considerable  differ- 
ences of  temperature  upon  the  Earth,  which  should  theoret- 
ically accompany  its  varying  distances  from  the  Sun;  in  the 
sixth  place,  the  theoretical  distribution  of  the  solar  heat 
over  the  Earth's  surface  is  almost  diametrically  the  opposite 
of  that  which  we  actually  observe;  and  in  the  seventh  place, 
Mars,  which  by  the  theory  should  have  a  temperature  of 
less  than  — 30CC.,  is  actually  observed  to  have  a  temperature 
probably  warmer  even  than  the  Earth  itself. 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  NEBULAR  HYPOTHESIS 


Every  hypothesis  is  bound  to  explain,  or,  at  any  rate,  not 
be  inconsistent  with,  the  whole  of  the  facts  which  it  professes 
to  account  for;  and  if  there  is  a  single  one  of  these  facts 
which  can  be  shown  to  be  inconsistent  with  (I  do  not  merely 
mean  inexplicable  by,  but  contrary  to)  the  hypothesis,  the 
hypothesis  falls  to  the  ground;  it  is  worth  nothing. 

—PROF  HUXLEY. 

The  nebular  theory  ...  is  emphatically  a  specula- 
tion; it  cannot  be  demonstrated  by  observation  or  establish- 
ed by  mathematical  calculation.  Yet  the  boldness  and  splen- 
dour of  the  nebular  theory  have  always  given  it  a  dignity  not 
usually  attached  to  a  doctrine  which  has  so  little  direct  evi- 
dence in  its  favor.— SIR  ROBERT  STAWELL  BALL. 

The  theory  of  Laplace,  in  the  form  in  which  it  was  pre- 
sented, cannot  be  maintained  by  any  one  acquainted  with 
the  laws  of  physics.  .  .  .  The  theory  that* the  star-  clouds, 
or  any  of  them,  are  external  galaxies  has  received  a  death- 
blow. This  is  not  saying  that  it  was  not  dead  before.  The 
blow  may  be  such  a  one  as  Falstaff  gave  the  dead  Percy;  but 
no  one  can  mistake  its  force.  With  this  new  wound  the  theo- 
ry has  no  longer  even  the  semblance  of  life,  and  will  possi- 
bly disappear  ere  long  from  those  cemeteries  for  defunct 
theories,  the  textbooks.— PROF.  R.  A.  PROCTOR. 

55.  Various  Modifications. — Having  now  glanced  over  the 
minor  phenomena  in  the  field  of  the  theory  of  gravitation, 
the  whole  domain  of  its  operation  may  here  finally  be  sur- 
veyed. Taking  the  Solar  System  as  a  whole,  there  obviously 
must  have  been  some  primordial  state  from  which  the  pres- 
ent arrangement  naturally  arose.  The  first  theory  regarding 
its  evolution  was  that  by  Laplace,  called  the  "nebular  hy- 
pothesis." It  began  with  a  homogeneous  globe  of  vapor  of 
extreme  rarity  extending  on  all  sides  of  the  Sun  far  beyond 
the  orbit  of  Neptune.  In  conjunction  with  the  theory  of  grav- 
itation, however,  the  nebular  hypothesis  meets  with  numerous 


55]  THE  NEBULAR  HYPOTHESIS  85 

insurmountable  difficulties;  and  as,  of  course,  the  former 
could  not  be  questioned,  doubt  and  suspicion  were  cast  upon 
the  latter;  so  much  so  that  Sir  J.  Norman  Lockyer  and  others 
published  a  new  and  different  theory,  the  "meteoritic  hypoth- 
esis," which  has  a  still  more  recent  "planetesimal"  variant. 
Instead  of  a  homogeneous  vapor,  "the  meteoritic  theory  of 
the  universe  supposes  that  in  the  beginning  space  was  filled 
by  an  innumerable  multitude  of  .  .  .  little  stony  masses 
moving  in  all  directions  with  immense  velocities  the  colli- 
sions of  which  originate  systems  such  as  the  Solar  System. 
As  meteorites  have  invariably  the  appearance  of  fragments 
torn  from  larger  bodies  by  collisions  or  explosions,  Dr.  Croll 
supposes  the  existence  of  countless  dark  stars  of  enormous 
velocities  primordially  colliding,  and  so,  by  his  Impact  The- 
ory, giving  origin  to  all  the  various  forms  of  matter  seen  in 
the  heavens."* 

Now  with  all  deference  to  the  ability  and  genius  of  the 
originators  and  supporters  of  this  meteoritic  hypothesis,  many 
of  whom  are  among  our  greatest  scientific  investigators,  it 
cannot  be  said  thai  their  theory  appeals  to  the  mind  as  a 
treatment  of  first  principles.  These  meteoritic  stones  clearly 
must  have  been  derived  from  a  preceding  state,  or  indeed  sev- 
eral successive  states.  We  might  just  as  well  commence  with 
the  worlds  we  now  see  about  us  as  to  commence  with  frag- 
ments which,  their  own  internal  evidence  shows,  have  been 
derived  from  just  such  worlds;  and  which,  even  after  we  as- 
sume them,  appear,  with  regard  to  their  evolution  into  the 
present  state,  to  be  subject  to  just  as  insuperable  difficulties 
as  are  met  with  in  the  nebular  hypothesis.  Indeed  the  latter 
is  the  only  logical  theory  which  treats  of  absolutely  primor- 
dial conditions;  and  from  what  has  already  in  the  preceding 
chapter  been  learned  of  the  theory  of  gravitation,  which  is 
supposed  to  govern  the  operation  of  the  nebular  hypothesis, 
the  suspicion  very  naturally  arises  that  the  difficulties  which 
block  our  progress  may  not  be  owing  to  the  latter  theory  at 

*William   Kingdon   Clifford,   Humboldt  Library  of   Science,    No.   166, 
pp.  26    32. 


86  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY    OP    GRAVITATION  [55 

all,  but  to  the  former  itself,  which  has  really  furnished  all 
the  evidence  against  the  other.  The  very  best  character  can 
be  impeached  by  a  false  witness  when  the  evidence  of  that 
witness  is  unquestioned. 

In  any  case  the  nebular  hypothesis,  being  the  most  logi- 
cal theory  and  the  most  generally  accepted,  will  now  be  con- 
sidered in  connection  with  the  theory  of  gravitation  in  order 
that  the  difficulties  of  its  operation  may  be  pointed  out  and 
traced  to  their  source,  if  possible,  with  a  view  to  their  event- 
ual removal  later  on. 


CHAPTER  VII 


NEBULAR  ROTATION  AND  TRANSLATION 


There  has  been  of  late  a  growing  trend  of  opinion, 
prompted  in  part  by  general  philosophical  views,  in  the  di- 
rection that  the  theoretical  conceptions  of  physical  science 
are  largely  factitious,  that  instead  of  presenting  a  valid  image 
of  the  relation  of  things  on  which  further  progress  can  be 
based,  they  are  still  little  better  than  a  mirage. — SIR  J. 
LARMOR  (quoted  by  Sir  Oliver  .Lodge,  Address  B.  A.  1913.) 

The  cause  of  science  is  more  truly  served,  even  by  the 
denial  of  what  may  be  a  truth,  than  by  the  indolent  accept- 
ance of  it  on  insufficient  grounds.  Such  denials  drive  us  to  a 
deeper  communion  with  Nature,  and,  as  in  the  present  in- 
stance, compel  us  through  severe  and  laborious  inquiry  to 
strive  after  certainty,  instead  of  resting  satisfied,  as  we  are 
prone  to  do,  with  mere  conjecture. — JOHN  TYNDALL. 

In  our  glorification  of  the  Newtonian  system  we  are  apt 
to  overlook  some  obvious  facts  which  the  law  of  gravitation 
fails  to  explain.  One  of  these  is  the  rotational  velocity  of 
our  solar  system  and  of  many  stellar  systems,  which  cannot 
be  self-generated.  Unless  we  threw  our  laws  of  dynamics 
overboard,  or  imagine  the  rotation  to  have  been  impressed  by 
creation,  we  must  conclude  that  some  outside  body  or  system 
of  bodies  is  endowed  with  an  equal  and  opposite  angular 
momentum.  What  has  become  of  that  outside  body,  and  how 
could  it  have  parted  company  with  our  solar  system,  if  at- 
tractive forces  only  were  acting? 

—PROF.    ARTHUR    SCHUSTER. 


57]  NEBULAR    ROTATION    AND    TRANSLATION  87 

56.  TKe  Primal  State  of  Matter. — The  most  general  con- 
ception involved  in  the  nebular  hypothesis  is — "that  of  a 
nebulous  matter  dispersed  in  masses  throughout  the  im- 
mensity of  the  heavens."  This  appears  to  be  the  postulate 
of  Kant,  Huyghens,  Sir  W.  Herschel,  Laplace,  and,  more 
recently,  Herbert  Spencer.  It  is  not,  however,  the  most 
general  conception;  for  Anaxagoras,  Democritus,  Descartes, 
Newton,  and,  it  seems,  Sir  W.  Thomson,  believed  that  there 
primordially  existed  a  universal  homogeneous  medium,  or 
"primitive  fluid,"  as  Sir  W.  Thomson  calls  it — which  certain- 
ly appears  to  be  the  true  starting-point  of  cosmical  evolution. 
But  this  universal  medium  may  be  considered  as  a  grander 
type  of  a  systemic  nebulous  mass;  and  the  same  reasoning 
will  then  apply  to  both. 

Suppose,  then,  a  vast  nebulous  mass,  employing  it  as  the 
representative  of  any  nebulous  mass  down  to,  and  including, 
the  dimensions  of  the  Solar  System.  And  regarding  the 
phenomena  likely  to  arise  in  such  a  mass,  we  may  examine 
here  chiefly  the  views  of  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  which  appear 
to  be  the  most  logical  and  also,  approximately,  those  of  the 
most  eminent  scientists  on  this  subject. 

57.     Atomic  Attraction  and   Repulsion. — 

"Given  a  rare  and  widely-diffused  mass  of  nebulous  matter 
having  a  diameter,  say  as  great  as  the  distance  from  the  Sun 
to  Sirius,  what  are  the  successive  changes  that  will  take 
place  in  it?  .  .  .  Mutual  gravitation  will  approximate  its 
mass;  .  .  .  The  approximation  will  be  opposed  by  atomic 
repulsion." 

Now  here,  right  in  the  start,  is  something  that  seems  very 
curious.  The  atoms  attract  one  another  and  they  repel  one 
another  at  the  same  time;  the  clashing  of  their  action  caus- 
ing "the  evolution  of  heat."  To  use  plain  language,  this 
idea  seems  no  more  conceivable  than  if  it  were  said  that  the 
atoms  (in  the  words  of  the  Greek  philosopher  Empedocles 
regarding  these  two  tendencies)  both  loved  and  hated  one 
another  at  the  same  time.  If  any  two  atoms  were  materially 
connected,  such  opposite  actions  might  be  intelligible,  for, 
while  gravitation  would  pull  them  together,  the  material  con- 


85  OBJECTIONS    TO   THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [59 

nection  might  hold  or  push  them  apart.  But,  there  being  no 
material  intermedium,  how  the  two  atoms  can  push-pull  or 
pull-push  one  another  as  above  intimated,  appears  to  be  en- 
tirely beyond  the  power  of  the  human  mind  to  grasp. 

58.  Cooling  and  Precipitation  of  tihe  Primordial  Vapor. — 

"As  fast  as  this  heat  partially  escapes  by  radiation,  fur- 
ther approximation  will  take  place,  followed  by  further  evo- 
lution of  heat,  and  so  on  continuously.  When  a  certain 
amount  of  heat  and  pressure  is  thus  attained,  some  of  the 
atoms  will  suddenly  enter  into  chemical  union." 

But  another  difficulty  occurs  here ;  for  Prof.  William 
Crookes  and  others  maintain  that  gravitation  can  exist,  or 
operate  to  approximate  primordial  atoms,  only  after  their 
union  has  already  taken  place.* 

"When  radiation  has  adequately  lowered  the  temperature, 
these  newly-formed  primary  atoms  will  precipitate  .  .  will 
aggregate  into  flocculi,  as  water  precipitated  from  air  forms 
clouds." 

These  flocculi,  acted  upon  by  gravitation, 

"must  not  only  be  drawn  to  their  common  center  of  grav- 
ity, but  also  toward  neighboring  flocculi.  Hence  the  whole 
assemblage  of  flocculi  will  break  up  into  subordinate  groups, 
each  group  concentrating  toward  its  local  center  of  gravity." 

In  very  large  nebulae,  these  groups  would  become  stars 
and  systems. 

59.  Rotation   by  Precipitation  of   Irregular  Flocculi. — The 
flocculi   would  have  irregular   shapes,   somewhat  like   snow- 
flakes,  and,  in  consequence  of  this,  their  motion  through  the 
rarer  substance  of  the  nebulae  towards  the  center  would  not 
be  in  straight  lines,  but  spiral  or  oblique. 

"What  now  must  result  when  a  flocculus  having  such 
oblique  movement  encounters  in  its  progress  a  medium  that 
is  always  denser  on  the  side  towards  the  center  than  on  the 
side  away  from  it?  There  must  perpetually  be  caused  a 
deflection  by  the  difference  of  pressure,  which  will  tend  to 
bring  the  flocculus  to  one  side  or  other  of  the  common  center 
of  gravity.  .  .  .  Each  flocculus,  in  describing  its  spiral 

*Nature,    34,    432. 


G9]  NEBULAR    ROTATION    AND    TRANSLATION  89 

course,  must  give  motion  to  the  rarer  medium  through  which 
it  is  moving.  .  .  .  The  probabilities  are  infinity  to  one 
against  all  the  motions  thus  impressed  on  the  rarer  medium 
balancing  each  other.  .  .  .  The  inevitable  result  must  be 
a  rotation  of  the  whole  mass  of  the  rarer  medium  in  one 
direction.  .  .  .  Preponderating  momentum  in  one  di- 
rection .  .  .  must  gradually  arrest  such  flocculi  as  are 
moving  in  opposition,  and  impress  its  own  motion  upon  them; 
and  thus  there  will  ultimately  be  formed  a  rotating  medium 
with  suspended  flocculi  partaking  of  its  motion." 

Mr.  Spencer's  object  here  is  chiefly  to  show  how  a  rota- 
tion arises  in  a  riebuluous  mass,  such  as  the  original  solar 
spheroid.  Now,  let  it  be  granted  that  gravitation  will  approx- 
imate the  mass-atoms;  that  compound  flocculi  will  consequent- 
ly be  formed;  that  the  flocculi  will  be  of  irregular  shape;  that 
the  central  rarer  medium  will  be  most  dense;  and  that  the 
direction  of  motion  of  the  flocculi  towards  the  center  will 
therefore  be  spiral  or  oblique — all  of  which  are  quite  open  to 
debate — it  is  still  impossible  that  rotation  of  the  mass  as  a 
whole  can  consequently  arise. 

If,  at  any  distance  from  the  mass-center,  flocculi  should 
be  drawn  towards  that  center,  it  is  clear  that  the  rarer  med- 
ium through  which  the  flocculi  moved  would  also  be  attracted 
towards  that  center;  and  although  the  rarer  medium  would  not 
have  actually  approached  to  the  center  so  much  as  the  floc- 
culi, yet  it  would  be  held  to  that  center  firmly  by  the  agency 
which  carried  the  flocculi  inwards.  Therefore,  from  the  ut- 
most distance  at  which  a  flocculus  would  move  inwards  to  the 
center,  the  rarer  medium  through  which  it  moved  would  be- 
long to  the  central  mass  towards  which  the  flocculus  was 
attracted.  In  fact,  the  rarer  medium  would  be  the  so-called 
atmosphere  of  the  central  mass,  and  would  always  appertain 
and  adhere  to  that  mass  at  least  unil  the  formation  of  the 
first  vapor-ring. 

In  that  case,  then,  how  can  any  motion  of  the  mass  as  a 
whole  ever  arise?  Do  not  the  motions  and  the  irregularities 
of  the  motions  of  the  flocculi  all  arise  in  the  mass  itself? 
And  would  it  not  be  as  rational  for  us  to  hold  that  we  could 
accelerate  the  Earth's  rotation  by  sliding  a  large  rock  down 


SO  OBJECTIONS    TO   THE    THEORY    OF   GRAVITATION  [59 

I  he  inclined  east  side  of  a  mountain,  or  that  we  could  increase 
the  speed  of  a  vessel  by  blowing  upon  its  sails  from  a  bellows 
placed  in  the  stern,  as  to  hold  that  any  spontaneous,  internal 
motions  of  the  components  of  a  mass  will  cause  motion  of  that 
mass  as  a  whole?  Indeed,  it  is  a  well-known  law — the  third 
law  of  Newton — that  action  and  reaction  are  always  exactly 
equal  and  opposite.  Applying  this  law  to  special  cases  it 
means  that  a  gun,  e.  g.,  when  fired,  has  precisely  the  same 
quantity  of  motion,  or  momentum,  backwards  in  the  recoil 
as  the  bullet  has  forwards,  or  that  the  rock  which  has  rolled 
down  the  inclined  side  of  a  mountain  conveys  precisely  the 
same  amount  of  motion  to  the  earth  at  the  foot  of  the  moun- 
tain, in  one  direction,  as  it  has  conveyed  to  the  mountain  it- 
self in  the  opposite  direction  during  its  descent;  or,  which  is 
a  precisely  analogous  case,  that  the  flocculus  in  its  irregular 
descent  towards  the  mass-center  will  transmit  just  as  much 
and  no  more  motion  to  the  central  mass  in  one  direction  as 
it  has  transmitted  in  its  descent  in  the  opposite  direction  to 
the  rarer  medium  through  which  it  fell.  The  supposed  re- 
sistance offered  by  the  rarer  medium  to  a  flocculus  on  the 
side  next  to  the  center  can  be  nothing  more  than  the  mere 
displacement  of  the  atoms  or  particles  of  that  medium  in  one 
direction  simultaneously  with  the  deflection  of  the  flocculus 
in  the  opposite  direction.  The  flocculus  may,  for  this  illus- 
tration, be  taken  to  be  a  solid  body,  like  a  marble  or  ball, 
which  is  falling  through  a  vast  number  of  smaller  marbles 
or  balls  freely  suspended  in  space.  The  large  ball,  as  it 
starts  upon  its  downward  journey,  will,  it  is  supposed,  strike 
against  one  of  the  small  balls  of  the  rarer  medium,  and  so 
suffer  deflection  from  its  central  course.  But  the  small  ball 
is  also  deflected;  and,  by  the  third  law  of  motion,  the  mo 
mentum  of  each  ball  away  from  the  radius  would  be  precisely 
equal  and  opposite;  and  since  every  subsequent  collision  of 
the  large  ball  with  the  small  balls  must  be  precisely  similar 
in  this  respect  to  the  first  collision,  as  well  as  that  other 
flocculi  must  also  be  similar  in  the  same  respect  to  this  par- 


60]  NEBULAR    ROTATION    AND    TRANSLATION  91 

ticular  flocculus — it  clearly  follows  that  however  much  denser 
may  be  the  central  medium,  and  however  irregular  may  be 
the  downward  motion  of  the  flocculus,  there  can  never  arise 
the  slightest  motion  one  way  or  the  other  that  would  tend 
to  rotate  the  gaseous  spheroid  as  a  whole. 

It  may  be,  as  Mr.  Spencer  states,  that  the  probabilities  are 
infinity  to  one  against  all  the  motions  impressed  upon  the 
rarer  medium  by  the  falling  flocculi  balancing  each  other. 
It  is  equally  improbable  also  that  all  the  motions  impressed 
upon  the  central  mass  thereby  will  balance  each  other.  Ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Spencer's  theory,  therefore,  there  would  be,  in 
all  probability,  a  rotation  of  the  rarer  medium  and  a  rotation 
of  the  central  mass.  But  what  is  fatal  to  this  theory  is  that 
the  third  law  of  motion  teaches  that  the  one  rotation  must  be 
precisely  equal  to  the  other.  If  by  mutual  friction  the  two 
rotations  should  counteract  one  another,  there  would  be  no 
preponderance  whatever  to  rotation  of  the  whole  mass  in 
any  direction;  and  it  would  remain  in  a  state  of  complete  rest 
as  respects  axial  rotation.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  the  the- 
ory of  the  co-existence  of  the  two  rotations  is  emphatically 
denied  by  the  uniform  direction  of  the  orbital  motions  of  the 
planets  and  the  axial  rotation  of  the  Sun.  Mr.  Spencer's  the- 
ory seems,  therefore,  utterly  untenable.  It  wholly  fails  to  as- 
sign a  possible  cause  for  the  rotation  of  the  original  solar 
spheroid.  And  without  such  rotation,  the  separation  of  vapor- 
rings  is,  of  course,  absolutely  precluded  by  the  law  of  gravi- 
tation. 

60.  Rotation  by  Nebular  Collisions. — Now,  if  it  be  impossi- 
ble that  rotation  of  a  vast  nebulous  mass  can  arise  owing  to 
internal  agency,  there  is  yet  one,  and  only  one,  cause  to 
which  such  rotation  may  be  ascribed,  namely,  external  agen- 
cy. Certain  scientists  hold  that  rotation  would  very  proba- 
bly arise  in  this  way;  and  the  premises  involved  may  be  ex- 
amined to  see  what  conclusion  may  be  derived  therefrom. 

(a)  Density  of  the  Primordial  Vapor. — The  true  ultimate 
postulate  of  cosmic  evolution,  as  already  intimated,  is  the  one 
universal  medium.  This  medium,  in  some  way  or  other,  is 


92  OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  THEORY  OF    GRAVITATION  [60 

supposed  to  have  eventually  segregated  into  the  nebulous 
masses  of  matter  postulated  by  Laplace.  Now,  according  to 
current  views,  no  cause  for  such  segregation  is  conceivable 
save  the  attraction  of  gravity  drawing  the  surrounding  mat- 
ter towards  local  centers  or  nuclei;  whence  would  result  the 
nebular  masses  of  which  Laplace  speaks.  One  of  these  mass- 
es was  originally  our  Solar  System,  and  others  became  the 
fixed  stars  and  nebulae  of  the  Sidereal  System.  Now  the 
interval  between  the  Solar  System  and  the  nearest  star  or 
nebula  is  about  twenty  billions  of  miles,  (the  distance  of 
Alpha  Centauri),  or  about  seven  times  the  radius  of  the  known 
Solar  System.  Assuming  that  the  primordial  vapor  of  the 
Solar  System  and  of  the  contiguous  systems  have  contracted 
at  about  the  same  rate,  we  have  half  the  distance  of  cur 
nearest  sidereal  neighbors,  or  about  three  and  one-half  times 
the  distance  of  Neptune,  as  the  probable  primitive  limit  of 
the  homogeneous  solar  substance.  To  find  the  corresponding 
primordial  density,  we  have,  then,  the  total  mass  of  all  the 
principal  bodies  of  the  Solar  System,  about  324,873,  and  their 
total  volume,  about  1,285,833,  the  Earth  being  the  unit  of 
both  mass  and  volume;  consequently,  the  average  densitv 
of  the  matter  of  our  system  today  is  0.2526,  the  Earth's  den- 
sity being  unity.  But  since  the  Earth's  density  is  said  to  be 
5.66  times  that  of  water;  and  since  the  density  of  water  is 
773.28  times  that  of  air,  then  the  present  average  density  of 
the  matter  of  the  Solar  System  with  reference  to  air  is  about 
1107.*  Since  volumes  vary  as  the  cubes  of  their  like  dimen- 
sions, and  the  radius  of  the  present  total  volume,  as  above, 
of  the  Solar  System,  being  about  430,000  miles,  and  of  the 
primordial  solar  spheroid  about  9,700,000,000  miles,  then  the 
present  and  primitive  volumes  of  the  Solar  System  will  be  to 
each  other  as  (43)E  and  (970,000)8,  respectively.  The  original 
density  is,  therefore,  (43)3X1107/(970,000)3,  or  about  10-1U,  that 
of  air  being  unity,  or  thirty  times  less  than  the  most  perfect 
vacuum  produced  by  the  Gaede  atomic  airpump  exhausting 
*Compare  Amiuaire  du  Bureau  des  Longitudes,  1881. 


60]          NEBULAR  ROTATION  AND  TRANSLATION       93 

to  1/300,000,000  of  an  atmosphere;  which  would  be  equal  to 
about  1/700,000  of  a  grain  per  cubic  yard. 

(b)  Conditions  of  Nebular  Condensation. — This,  according 
to  present  ideas,  would  be  the  probable  density  of  the  original 
universal  medium.  And  by  the  attraction  of  gravitation  (if 
in  such  a  medium  a  center  of  attraction  is  conceivable)  this 
medium  began  to  concentrate  around  local  centers  or  nuclei. 
Slowly  and  gradually  the  interval  between  the  borders  of  the 
contiguous  nebulae  widened.  Having  such  extreme  rarity, 
the  periphery  of  a  nebula  would  concentrate  at  equal  rates 
upon  all  sides ;  and  this  would  continue  until  the  interval  be- 
tween neighboring  nebulae  was  very  great.  How,  then,  is  it 
possible  that  motion  of  a  nebula,  as  a  whole,  can  arise?  Con- 
densation of  a  nebula  towards  its  center  can  not  surely  cause 
a  translation  of  that  nebula  in  space;  and  neither  can  it  cause 
the  separation  and  translation  in  space  of  any  portion  of  that 
nebula.  Yet  Prof.  Alexander  Winchell  states*  that  "the  most 
plausible  conception  of  the  forming  process  of  nebulae  rep- 
resents them  as  falling  together  and  acquiring  of  necessity 
a  rotary  motion  from  an  early  stage  of  their  existence";  and 
again  he  states  that  owing  to  these  collisions  "the  chances 
of  the  causation  of  rotary  motion  are  nearly  as  infinity  to 
unity."  And  even  Sir  William  Thomson  maintained  the  prob- 
ability of  these  collisions,  t 

In  another  place,  J  in  a  statement  of  an  original  theory  of 
his  own,  Prof.  Winchell  says: 

"The  universal  world-stuff  is  scattered  generally  through 
boundless  space.  Perhaps,  as  Macvicar  and  Saigey  have  sug- 
gested, this  primordial  stuff  in  an  extreme  state  of  attenuation 
is  the  ether,  the  medium  whose  vibrations,  according  to  Dr. 
Young,  striking  the  retina,  produce  the  sensation  of  light. 
Out  of  this  semi-spiritual  substance  germinates,  then,  the 
molecules  of  common  matter.  ...  It  may  be,  on  the 
other  hand,  only  a  highly  attenuated  condition  of  ordinary 
matter,  or  matter  in  a  state  of  ultimate  dissociation.  This 
characteristic  world-stuff,  born  out  of  ether,  in  the  depths 

*  World-Life,   p.    170. 
tNature,  35,  299. 
JWorld-Life,  pp.  65-6. 


94  OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  THEORY   OP  GRAVITATION  [61 

of  space,  or  however  born,  strewn  through  the  depths  of 
space,  is  acted  upon  by  forces  of  attraction  and  probably  of 
repulsion.  The  material  particles,  either  as  atoms,  or  less 
probably  as  molecules,  are  drawn  by  mutual  attraction  into 
groups  and  swarms." 

This  is  essentially  the  same  view  of  nebular  evolution  as 
that  just  described  in  the  preceding  pages,  and  in  logical  ac- 
cordance with  which  it  is  wholly  incomprehensible  how  "the 
collisions  of  nebular  masses,"  which  Prof.  Winchell  so  con- 
fidently postulates,  can  arise.  It  is  somewhat  strange  that 
Prof.  Winchell  did  not  attempt  to  explain  the  cause  of  these 
collisions,  although  he  states  that  the  difficulty  of  nebular 
rotation  which  he  sought  to  explain  by  them  "has  often  balked 
belief  in  the  nebular  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  solar  system." 
It  certainly  is  no  explanation  of  nebular  rotations  to  say  that 
they  are  caused  by  still  more  inexplicable  nebular  collisions. 
Such  attempts  at  explanation  may  be  consistent  with  the  idea 
of  "the  ever-present  activity  of  an  intelligent  personality  con- 
trolling and  effectuating  all  the  operations  of  nature;"*  but 
it  hardly  seems  consistent  with  the  idea  of  natural  causation. 

61.  Rotation  by  the  Attraction  of  Distant  Masses). — Two 
other  external  causes  of  nebular  rotation  may  be  noticed, 
namely,  the  attraction  of  distant  masses  upon  amorphous  neb- 
ular forms  and  the  attraction  of  distant  masses  upon  precip- 
itating nebular  particles. 

With  respect  to  the  first,  it  may  be  said  that  such  amor- 
phous forms  are  themselves  incompatible  with  the  theory  of 
gravitation.  How  vapor  of  such  extreme  tenuity,  condensing 
on  all  sides  upon  an  attracting  center,  could  assume  an  ir- 
regular form  can  not  be  explained.  Moreover  we  have  no 
certain  proof  that  such  forms  exist.  The  apparent  irregular 
forms  of  nebulae  may  be  entirely  owing  to  their  immense  dis- 
tance from  us,  coupled  with  our  own  feebleness  of  vision. 

With  respect  to  the  other  alleged  cause  of  nebular  rotation 
it  may  be  said  that  the  external  masses  which  would  influence 
a  falling  particle  are  so  very  distant  from,  and  so  nearly  uni- 
formly distributed  around,  the  Solar  System,  that  the  prepon- 

*World-Life,  p.  94. 


62]         NEBULAR  ROTATION  AND  TRANSLATION         95 

derance  of  attraction,  if  any  at  all  existed,  must  be  so  infin- 
itesimal as  to  require  almost  an  eternity  to  deviate  the  path 
of  a  particle  a  single  hair's-breadth.  Moreover,  if  we  only 
enter  into  the  details,  we  shall  find  that  there  really  can  not 
exist  any  preponderance  of  external  attraction  tending  to  ro- 
tation of  a  nebula.  For,  granting  that  an  external  attraction 
did  exist,  which  measurably  deflected  the  path  of  a  falling 
particle  towards  the  center  from  which  this  perturbing  force 
emanated,  it  is  manifest  that  the  tailing  particles  in  the  op- 
posite hemisphere  of  the  nebula  would  be  acted  upon  with 
precisely  the  same  energy  and  effect  by  this  perturbing  at- 
traction. And  the  particles  being  equally  deflected  towards 
the  same  point,  and  moving  in  opposite  directions,  just  what 
the  deflection  of  the  particles  of  one  hemisphere  tended  to 
rotate  the  nebula  in  one  direction,  just  so  much  precisely 
would  the  deflection  of  the  particles  of  the  opposite  hemi- 
sphere tend  to  rotate  it  in  the  opposite  direction,  and  both 
tendencies  would  exactly  balance.  And  similarly  also  with 
all  other  external  attractions,  so  that  not  even  an  infinitesi- 
mal preponderance  of  perturbing  attraction  could  exist  avail- 
able for  nebular  rotation. 

Yet  Sir  Robert  Stawell  Ball  says:  "There  is  no  difficulty 
in  conceiving  how  a  nebula,  quite  independently  of  any  in- 
ternal motion  of  its  parts,  shall  also  have  as  a  whole  a  move- 
ment of  rotation."* 

62.  Discordance  of  the  Theory  with  the  Facts. — But  never- 
theless, nebular  rotation  is  a  fact — a  fact  which  it  is  not  at 
all  attempted  here  to  deny;  for  it  is  simply  endeavored  to  be 
shown  that  the  current  theory  does  not  furnish  any  rational 
explanation  of  it.  Moreover,  nebular  rotation  is  not  an  ul- 
timate or  final  fact  like  the  existence  of  matter  or  of  force, 
any  more  than  rotation  of  the  Earth  is  an  ultimate  fact.  If 
the  idea  of  rotation  were  applied  to  the  material  universe  as 
a  whole,  the  claim  would  then  logically  apply  that  this  rota- 
tion was  an  ultimate,  and  therefore  an  inexplicable,  fact.  But 
it  seems  really  absurd  to  claim  that  the  rotation  and  trans- 

*Ency.  Britt.  Art.    "Astronomy." 


96  OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  THEORY  OF  GRAVITATION  [62 

lation  of  discrete  masses  of  matter,  such  as  the  solar  spher- 
oid and  the  innumerable  similar  masses  in  the  Sidereal  Sys- 
tem, are  ultimate  facts  in  the  case  of  each  body.  Such  a 
lavish  application  of  the  idea  of  finality  is  simply  an  indi- 
cation of  poverty  of  knowledge  of  the  proximate  facts  of  Na- 
ture in  the  theory  which  unavoidably  resorts  to  it,  and  the 
same  remarks  equally  apply  to  nebular  collisions;  but,  as  al- 
ready intimated,  such  collisions,  in  the  early  stages  of  neb- 
ular evolution,  should  be  regarded  as  very  improbable,  to  say 
the  least.  It  seems  far  more  probable  that  the  Solar  System, 
stars,  and  nebulae  have  each  a  proper  orbital  motion  and  that 
their' relative  distances  are  generally  invariable  beyond  cer- 
tain limits,  much  like  the  planets  of  our  own  system — a  mod- 
ification of  the  views  of  Kant,  Herschel,  and  Laplace.  These 
two  facts  of  nebular  translation  and  nebular  rotation  must 
surely  have  had  a  natural  cause;  that  is,  they  must  have  been 
brought  about  by  the  action  of  natural  forces  precisely  in  the 
same  manner  as  other  natural  phenomena,  with  which  we 
are  familiar.  And  the  action  of  these  forces  in  producing  such 
simple  effects  in  such  a  multitude  of  cases  ought  not  to  be 
beyond  our  comprehension  in  the  case  of  a  nebula  a  whit  more 
than  in  the  case  of  more  familiar  phenomena,  if  only  the  in- 
investigation  takes  place  equally  in  each  case  upon  a  basis 
of  facts. 


CHAPTER   VIII 


PROJECTION  OF  PLANETRINGS 


Even  the  great  Newton  pretended  to  see  the  finger  of 
God  in  the  tangential  or  lateral  motion  of  the  stars;  and 
Laplace  himself  could  not  refrain  from  exclaiming  "O  philos- 
opher, show  me  the  hand  which  has  thrown  the  planets  on 
the  tangents  of  their  orbits!" — BUCHNER. 

Berzelius  laid  down  the  following  principle:  The  test 
of  the  truth  of  a  theory  is  that  it  should  harmonize  the  par- 
ticular instance  with  the  whole  system  of  science;  for  the 
laws  of  nature  are  always  consistent  with  one  another.  Now 
if  you  advance  a  principle  which  makes  an  exception  of  what 
was  before  consistent  with  scientific  ideas,  logic  pronounces 
against  you. — R.  MELDOLA. 

Obstinate  adherence  to  things  antiquated  and  irreconcil- 
able with  advancing  knowledge  and  thought,  may  repel,  and 
forever,  how  many,  I  know  not;  how  far,  I  know  still  less. 
Avertat  omen  Deus. — DEAN  MILMAN. 

63.  Modification  of  the  Radial  and  the  Tangential  Forces 
by  Contraction. — But  let  us  assume  the  existence  of  nebular 
rotation.  In  defense  of  such  assumptions  it  is  sometimes 
claimed,  as  already  intimated,  that  we  always  arrive  sooner 
or  later  at  Questions  of  origin,  which  must  for  the  time  being 
remain  unanswered.  But  the  validity  of  this  defense,  except 
in  the  case  of  a  proved  ultimate  fact,  ought  not  to  be  allowed, 
as  has  just  been  shown.  And  neither  should  it  be  allowed, 
according  with  Prof.  A.  Winchell,  e.  g.,  that  "many  different 
modes  of  action,  for  the  production  of  a  particular  result  are 
possible'';  but  choose  rather  to  hold  that  there  can  be  but 
one  correct  explanation  and  one  possible  cause  of  any  par- 
ticular phenomenon,  and  that  all  other  explanations  of  it  are 
precluded  by  the  true  one.  It  is  not  meant  that  a  combination 
of  effects,  such  as  determine  the  Earth's  orbit,  may  not  have 
a  combination  of  causes,  some  of  which,  from  their  small- 
ness,  may  remain  for  a  time  undetermined.  But  the  simple 
fact  of  the  Earth's  orbital  motion  (or  the  equally  simple  fact 


98  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY    OP    GRAVITATION  [63 

of  nebular  rotation)  can  obviously  have  but  the  one  true  gen- 
eral explanation. 

But  merely  for  the  sake  of  examining  the  nebular  hypoth- 
esis a  few  steps  further,  let  the  «tatement  of  Helmholtz  be 
conceded,  that  nebular  rotation  "must  be  assumed."  Taking 
the  case  of  the  original  solar  spheroid,  and  supposing  either, 
with  Laplace,  that  it  consists  of  a  brilliant  and  dense  nucleus 
surrounded  by  a  rare  nebulosity  or  atmosphere,  or,  with  M. 
Faye,  that  it  consists  of  a  globular  nebula  gradually  increas- 
mg  in  density  from  circumference  to  center;  and  granting 
its  axial  rotation,  let  us  see  if,  according  to  current  scientific 
views,  the  alleged  vapor-rings  could  possibly  be  generated. 

Evidently  the  centrifugal  tendency  at  the  equator  of  the 
spheroid,  owing  to  its  axial  rotation,  must  have  been  less  than 
the  power  of  the  central  attraction  prior  to  the  genesis  of  the 
first  ring.  If  this  be  granted,  as,  in  fact,  it  must  be  and  is 
by  every  supporter  of  the  nebular  hypothesis,  then  it  can  be 
shown  that  the  more  the  spheroid  contracts  its  volume,  the 
less  relatively  to  the  central  attraction  will  become  the  cen- 
trifugal tendency,  thus  making  the  projection  of  a  vapor-ring 
an  impossibility.  Suppose,  for  illustration,  that  the  initial 
velocity  of  the  spheroid's  equatorial  surface  was  one  mile 
per  second;  and  suppose  that  subsequently  the  spheroid  con- 
tracted to  about  one-third  of  its  original  diameter,  or  to  the 
orbit  of  Neptune;  then,  by  the  law  of  gravitation,  the  central 
attraction  at  the  smaller  radius  would  be  nine  times  as  power- 
ful as  at  the  original  radius;  and,  not  only  this,  but  at  the 
smaller  radius  the  surface  is  only  one-ninth  what  it  was  at 
the  larger  radius;  so  that  nine  times  the  attraction  upon  the 
original  surface,  is,  after  contraction,  concentrated  upon  one- 
ninth  of  that  original  surface,  and  therefore  the  central  attrac- 
tion upon  a  unit  of  the  contracted  surface  is  eighty-one  times 
as  great  as  upon  an  equal  unit  of  the  original  surface.*  The 
centrifugal  tendency  would  also  become  more  powerful,  but 
in  a  much  smaller  ratio;  for  the  absolute  velocity  of  the 
equatorial  surface,  as  we  have  seen  (Art.  41),  would  still  be 

*J.  Homer  Lane,  Am.  Jour.  Sci.,  July,  1870;  A.  Winchell,  WorlcU 
Life,  p.  84;  Newcomb's  Pop.  Astron.,  p.  520. 


64]  PROJECTION   OF    PLANET-RINGS  99 

no  greater  than  one  mile  per  second.  And  as  the  centrifugal 
force  varies  as  the  square  of  the  velocity  divided  by  the  ra- 
dius, it  follows  that,  while  the  central  attraction  becomes 
eighty-one  times  as  powerful  owing  to  this  shrinkage  of  the 
spheroid,  the  centrifugal  or  ring-making  tendency  becomes 
only  three  times  as  powerful.  In  other  words,  the  central 
attraction  increases  as  the  fourth  power  of  the  radius  dimin- 
ishes, while  the  centrifugal  tendency  increases  simply  as  the 
first  power  of  the  radius  diminishes.  And  even  if  all  that 
the  current  theory  claims  in  this  respect  be  granted,  the  cen- 
trifugal tendency  would  increase  only  as  the  square  of  the 
radius  diminishes.  Thus  it  is  clearly  seen  that,  whatever  the 
radius  of  the  spheroid  would  be,  the  central  attraction  is  al- 
ways in  excess  of  the  centrifugal  tendency.  And  the  greater 
the  concentration  of  the  spheroid,  the  less  powerful  relatively 
to  the  central  attraction  becomes  the  centrifugal,  or  ring-pro- 
ducing, force. 

This  appears  to  dispose  of  the  theory  of  gravitation  com- 
pletely as  accounting  for  the  projection  of  rings  from  the 
original  spheroid.  According  to  that  theory,  the  central  at- 
traction increases  as  the  square  of  the  radius  of  the  spheroid 
diminishes;  and  the  centrifugal  tendency  increases  at  the 
same  rate  as  the  central  attraction.  Then  where  is  the  force 
that  causes  the  projection  of  the  ring,  since  both  of  the  prin- 
cipal forces  increase  at  the  same  rate?  If  there  were  no 
other  consideration  than  this  alone,  the  projection  of  rings 
would  be  quite  inexplicable  by  the  theory.  But,  as  just  seen, 
the  central  attraction  increases,  not,  as  the  square  of  the  ra- 
dius diminishes,  but  as  the  fourth  power  of  the  radius  dimin- 
ishes; and  it  appears  also  that  the  centrifugal  force  would 
increase  only  as  the  first  power  of  the  radius  diminishes. 

64.  T,he  Generation  of  a  Repulsive  Force,  or  Heat,  by  Con- 
traction.— It  is  sometimes  assumed  that  a  third  force  acts  upon 
an  equatorial  particle  of  a  spheroid — a  force  of  repulsion  urg- 
ing the  particle  from  the  center.  The  difficulty  of  conceiving 
how  this  force  of  repulsion  for  the  particle  can  emanate  from 


100  OBJECTIONS    TO   VHE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [64 

sister  particles  from  which  in  the  same  moment  emanates 
a  force  of  attraction  for  the  particle,  has  already  been  refer- 
red to. 

Prof.  Simon  Newcomb,  speaking  of  the  Sun's  heat,  says: 

"As  his  globe  cools  off  it  must  contract,  and  the  heat  gen- 
erated by  this  contraction  will  suffice  to  make  up  almost  the 
entire  loss."* 

Speaking  of  a  gaseous  body,  he  again  says: 

"The  more  heat  such  a  body  loses  the  hotter  it  will  be- 
come. By  losing  heat  a  gaseous  body  contracts,  and  the  heat 
generated  by  the  contraction  exceeds  that  which  it  had  to 
lose  in  order  to  produce  the  contraction. "f 

This  doctrine  is  known  as  "Lane's  Law."  In  plain  words, 
it  means  that  cooling  causes  contraction  and  contraction 
causes  heat;  or,  briefly,  cooling  causes  heat.  In  fact  a  little 
cooling  causes  a  great  deal  of  heat.  In  a  gaseous  body,  ac- 
cording to  Prof.  Newcomb,  the  loss  of  heat  to  cause  contrac- 
tion is  less  than  the  gain  of  heat  which  that  contraction  gen- 
erates ;  from  which  it  would  seem  that  the  more  a  body  cooled, 
the  hotter  it  would  get;  and  from  which,  if  any  conclusion 
whatever  is  allowable  from  such  apparently  absurd  premises, 
it  would  follow  that  such  a  body  could  never  cool,  and  there- 
fore never  contract,  at  all.  Yet  in  view  of  all  the  insurmount- 
able difficulties  here  pointed  out,  Sir  William  Thomson,  Pres- 
ident of  the  Royal  Society  of  Edinburgh,  communicated  a 
paper,  March  7,  1887,  to  that  Society,  stating  that  in  the  light 
of  thermo-dynamical  principles  Laplace's  theory  is  seen  to  be, 
not  a  mere  plausible  theory,  but  a  statement  of  actual  fact. 
He  has  not,  indeed,  committed  himself  to  the  foregoing  view 
of  Prof.  Newcomb  and  others,  for  in  a  lecture  upon  the  Sun's 
heat}  he  assumes  that  his  hearers  are  no  longer  misled  by 
such  a  delusion.  Still  he  maintains  that  the  heat  generated 
by  the  Sun's  contraction  owing  to  cooling  differs  so  little  from, 
as  to  be  practically  equivalent  to,  the  heat  that  is  radiated 

*Pop.  Astion.,   6th!  ed.   p.   519-20. 

tlbid. 

J Royal    Institution,    London,    Jan.    21,    1887. 


f,5]  PROJECTION   OP   PLANET-KINGS  101 

from  the  Sun  at  the  same  time.*  But  this  view  appears  to 
be  only  a  little  more  logical,  or  rather  a  little  less  illogical, 
than  the  other.  For  if  the  gain  and  the  loss  of  heat  at  the 
Sun's  surface  are  practically  equivalent,  how  can  fhe  Sun 
cool  at  all  so  as  to  admit  of  contraction? 

Now  if  it  be  held  that  the  gain  of  heat  generated  by  con- 
traction does  not  exceed  the  loss  of  heat  necessary  to  cause 
that  contraction  (which  is  the  view  of  Thomson,  Siemens, 
Lockyer,  Helmholtz,  Williams,  etc.),  then  it  obviously  follows 
that  the  force  of  repulsion  (or  the  heat)  after  contraction  is 
no  greater  than  it  was  before  contraction;  which  for  the  pres- 
ent purpose  wholly  eliminates  this  agent  as  a  factor  in  the 
generation  of  planet-rings  upon  the  bosom  of  the  solar  spher- 
oid. And  therefore  the  tendency  to  the  projection  of  such 
rings  from  the  contracted  surface  of  that  spheroid  as  com- 
pared with  the  tendency  to  non-projection  of  such  rings,  or 
adherence  of  all  matter  to  the  spheroid  itself,  remains  as  de- 
termined by  the  centrifugal  force  of  rotation  and  the  central 
force  of  attraction;  that  is,  as  the  first  power  of  the  con- 
tracted radius  is  to  its  fourth  power,  in  favor  of  the  latter, 
supposing  that  the  tendency  to  projection  and  to  non-projec- 
tion were  equal,  or  balanced,  at  the  original  surface. 

65.  Conflicting  Theories  of  Ring-Projection. — In  further 
illustration  of  the  chaotic  confusion  to  which  the  nebular  hy- 
pothesis, subject  to  the  law  of  gravitation,  leads,  it  may  be 
remarked  that  Sir  David  Brewster  approved  a  calculation  by 
M.  Babinet  that  when  the  solar  spheroid  had  contracted  to 
the  present  orbit  of  the  Earth,  its  period  of  rotation,  accord- 
ing to  the  nebular  hypothesis  (assuming  the  accepted  solar 
density  and  equal  angular  velocity  of  all  parts)  must  have 
been  3,181  years!  although  the  Earth  itself,  which  by  the  same 
hypothesis  was  but  a  portion  of  the  solar  surface  at  that  time, 
performs  its  annual  revolution  in  one  year!  Mr.  Herbert 
Spencer  disapproved  of  such  calculations,  and  remarked  upon 

*Macmillan's  Magazine,  March  1862.  and  Thomson  and  Tait's  Natur- 
al Philosophy,  Appendix  E 


102  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [65 

"the  extreme  difficulty,  if  not  impossibility,  of  subjecting  the 
nebular  hypothesis  to  mathematical  treatment."* 

M.  Faye,  disbelieving  the  possibility  of  ring-projection  ac- 
cording to  the  conceptions  of  Laplace,  says: 

"By  the  intervention  of  heat  and  the  play  of  centrifugal 
force,  Laplace  caused  to  be  produced  a  totally  different  dis- 
tribution of  the  mass  and  of  its  movements.  This  corre- 
sponds, to  a  certain  extent,  with  what  we  see.  But  thia  in- 
tervention of  heat  is  itself  pure  hypothesis.  To  justify  it  we 
must  suppose,  with  Poisson,  that  there  are  in  the  universe 
regions  with  very  different  temperatures,  and  that  the  prim- 
itive globe,  by  virtue  of  its  motion  of  translation,  had  passed 
into  one  of  the  hottest."  f 

But  he  assigns  no  cause  whatever  for  such  ring-projection 
according  to  the  somewhat  different  conceptions  from  that  of 
Laplace  which  he  himself  entertains  of  the  solar  spheroid. 
He  gets  over  the  difficulty  thus:  "If,  then,  trains  of  matter 

somewhat  circular,  in  a  word,  rings  like  those  of  Saturn, 

become  finally  established  in  the  bosom  of  the  nebula" — with- 
out attempting  to  assign  the  slightest  physical  cause  of  their 
becoming  so  established. 

Another  view  by  Phillip  Spiller  is  that  the  planets  are  pro- 
jected out  from  a  liquid  Sun  by  the  centrifugal  force  of  ro- 
tation and  a  tidal  swell  caused  by  another  body;  that  Saturn 
was  projected  by  the  tidal  swell  caused  by  Uranus;  that  Ura- 
nus was  projected  by  the  tidal  swell  caused  by  Neptune.$  But 
the  projection  of  Neptune  itself  is  not  accounted  for;  and  it 
is  moreover  disputed  by  modern  astronomers  that  even  now 
the  Sun  has  attained  a  liquid  condition.  And  Prof.  R.  A.  Proc- 
tor expressed  his  belief  upon  the  subject  as  follows: 

"No  one  who  applies  the  laws  of  physics,  as  at  present 
known,  to  the  theory  of  the  simple  contraction  of  a  great  neb- 
ulous mass  formerly  extending  far  beyond  the  orbit  of  Nep- 
tune, till,  when  planet  after  planet  had  been  thrown  off,  the 
sun  was  left  in  his  present  form  and  condition  in  the  center, 
will  fail  to  perceive  enormous  difficulties  in  the  hypothesis. 

*First  Principles,  p.   365. 
tComptes  Rendus,   March   22,   1880. 

$Prof.  Gr.  H.  Darwin  held  a  nearly  similar  view  concerning  the  re- 
tirement of  the  lunar  mass  from  the  semi-fluid  Earth. 


66]  PROJECTION   OF   PLANET-RINGS  103 

.  ,  .  Has  it  ever  occured,  I  often  wonder,  to  those  who 
glibly  quote  the  nebular  theory  as  originally  propounded,  to 
inquire  how  far  some  of  the  processes  suggested  by  JLaplace 
are  in  accordance  with  the  now  known  laws  of  physics?"* 

And  what  is  Prof.  Proctor's  improvement  upon  the  Laplac- 
ean  conception?  Simply  the  addition  of  accretion  to  contrac- 
tion, and  an  assumption  of  a  central  nucleus  and  subordinate 
nuclei  with  independent  motions! — an  assumption  which,  al- 
though apparently  countenanced  by  men  of  such  eminence  as 
Kant,  Sir  W.  Herschel,  and  Herbert  Spencer,  is  so  manifestly 
improbable  that  it  need  not  here  be  discussed. 

As  already  stated,  the  theory  of  Laplace  is  the  one  now 
generally  accepted.  M.  Wolf  in  his  Cosmogonic  Hypotheses 
shows  that,  as  completed  by  the  labors  of  M.  Roche  and  other 
savants,  that  theory  still  answers  best  to  the  conditions  re- 
quired of  a  cosmogonic  hypothesis.  These  criticisms,  as  al- 
ready intimated,  are  not  directed  at  it,  but  almost  entirely  to 
the  application  thereto  of  the  theory  of  gravitation. 

66.  Discordance  of  the  Theory  With  the  Facts. — From  all 
points  of  view,  then,  the  nebular  hypothesis,  as  subject  to  the 
theory  of  gravitation,  seems  rationally  unapproachable.  If  we 
ask  how  the  nebular  primordial  rotation  originated,  we  find 
that  every  assignable  cause  eludes  rational  conception. 
Whether  it  be  the  centerward  spiral  movement  of  irregular 
flocculi  through  a  rarer  atmosphere,  the  collisions  of  nebular 
masses,  or  the  various  attractions  of  distant  nebular  masses 
either  upon  the  concentrating  particles  of  a  nebula,  or  upon 
amorphous  nebular  forms — each  such  assignable  agency,  when 
ultimately  analyzed,  proves  to  be  entirely  visionary.  Yet  it 
is  undeniable  that  such  rotation  must  actually  have  existed. 
And,  for  the  moment,  granting  the  existence  of  primordial 
rotation  as  an  ultimate  fact,  when  we  inquire  how  this  rota- 
tion became  accelerated  so  as  to  project  the  planets  outwards 
from  the  solar  spheroid,  we  are  met  by  equally  unsurmount- 
able  difficulties.  For,  if  we  assume  the  agency  to  be  con- 
traction of  the  spheroid,  we  find  that  such  contraction  in- 

*Humbcldt  Library  cf  Science,  III,  351. 


104  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [66 

creases  the  central  attraction  much  more  rapidly  than  it  does 
the  tangential,  or  ring-producing,  force;  if  we  assume  the 
generation  of  a  repulsive  force,  or  Jieat,  by  such  contraction, 
it  leads  us  to  the  self-contradictory  conclusion  that  the  cooling 
of  the  solar  spheroid  engendered  a  more  intense  degree  of 
heat  than  that  which  existed  before  the  cooling  began.  While 
we  know  that  nebular  rotation,  translation,  and  acceleration 
of  the  tangential  velocity  of  rotation  must  have  taken  place 
and  muse  have*  had  physical  causes,  it  seems  that  all  our  in- 
quiries after  such  causes  are  utterly  baffled  by  some  ever- 
present  preconception  which  enters  the  fabric  or  our  thoughts, 
or  upon  which  our  inquiries  are  based;  and  this  ever-present 
premise  is  evidently  none  other  than  the  theory  of  universal 
gravitation. 

There  really  can  be  scarcely  a  doubt  of  the  truth  of  the 
nebular  hypothesis.  Sir  Robert  S.  Ball  himself  admitted  that, 
"if  the  direction  of  movement"  of  all  the  bodies  of  the  Solar 
System  "were  merely  decided  by  chance,  the  probability 
against  such  an  arrangement"  (the  present  arrangement)  "  is 
represented  by  the  ratio  of  unity  to  a  number  containing 
about  eighty  figures."  Yet  the  only  explanation  of  the  pres- 
ent arrangement  is  furnished  by  the  nebular  hypothesis  or 
some  near  modification  of  it.  But  we  know  the  nebular  hy- 
pothesis lies  in  inextricable  difficulties  at  the  present  time 
and  we  know  moreover  that  the  only  company  it  has  kept  is 
the  law  of  gravitation  and  a  few  subordinate  laws  dependent 
thereon. 


CHAPTER  IX 


THE  IDEA  OF  FORCE 


Matter  is  not  that  "mere  empty  capacity  which  philoso- 
phers have  pictured  her  to  be,  but  the  universal  mother  who 
brings  forth  all  things  as  the  fruit  of  her  own  womb." 

— BKUNO. 

We  can  thus,  by  a  touch,  call  into  action  at  will  an  in- 
definite number  of  stresses,  and  put  them  again  out  of  ex- 
istence as  easily.  This,  of  itself,  is  a  very  strong  argument 
against  the  supposition  that  force  in  any  form  can  have  ob- 
jective reality. — PROF.  P.  G.  TAIT. 

All  our  experience,  without  a  single  exception,  enforces 
the  proposition  that  no  body  moves  in  any  direction,  or  in 
any  way,  except  when  some  other  body  in  contact  with  it 
presses  upon  it.  The  action  is  direct.  In  a  letter  from  New- 
ton to  his  friend  Bentley,  he  says:  "It  must  not  be  forgotten 
that  energy  is  not  a  simple  factor,  but  is  always  a  product  of 
two  factors:  a  mass  with  a  velocity,  a  mass  with  a  temper- 
ature, a  quantity  of  electricity  with  a  pressure,  and  so  on. 
One  may  sometimes  meet  the  statement  that  matter  and 
energy  are  the  two  realities;  both  are  spoken  of  as  entities. 
It  is  much  more  philosophical  to  speak  of  matter  and  motion; 
for  in  the  absence  of  motion  there  is  no  energy,  and  the  en- 
ergy varies  as  the  amount  of  motion;  and  furthermore,  to 
understand  any  manifestation  of  energy  one  must  inquire 
what  kind  of  motion  is  involved." — PROF.  E.  A.  DOLtfEAR. 

The  aim  and  effort  of  science  is  to  explain  the  unknown 
in  terms  of  the*  known.  Explanation,  therefore,  is  condition- 
ed by  knowledge.  .  .  .  Instead  of  introducing  light  into 
our  minds,  this  hypothesis  considered  scientifically  increases 
our  darkness.  You  do  not  in  this  case  explain  the  unknown 
in  terms  of  the  known,  which  as  stated  above,  is  the  method 
of  science,  but  you  explain  the  unknown  in  terms  of  the 
more  unknown.— JOHN  TYNDALL. 

67.  Force  and  Gravity. — This  part  of  the  present  work  was 
commenced  by  asking — What  is  the  law  of  gravitation?  and  it 
may  fittingly  be  closed  with  another  question — What  is 
gravity  ? 


106  OBJECTIONS    TO   THE    THEORY    OP    GRAVITATION  [67 

According  to  the  theory  of  gravitation,  gravity  is  an  en- 
tity called  force.  What  is  force?  We  understand  the  term 
when  applied  to  denote  a  mode,  such  as  strength  or  violence  of 
action  or  impact;  but  as  an  entity,  a  thing,  we  really  have  no 
conception  of  it.  It  seems  to  be  merely  a,  cloak  with  which 
to  cover  our  ignorance;  nothing  more. 

The  entity,  force,  is  supposed  to  be  something  that  ema- 
nates from  bodies  as  a  sort  of  spiritual  aura  or  atmosphere 
which  extends  outwards  in  all  directions  into  space  whether 
empty  or  full  of  matter,  and  so  causing  these  bodies  to  act 
where  they  themselves  do  not  exist.  But  all  our  experience 
tarnishes  no  analogue  of  this  and  therefore  it  is  quite  beyond 
our  comprehension.  Even  Newton  himself,  in  his  Bentley 
Letters,  emphatically  disavows  this  idea.  In  his  third  letter 
he  says: 

"That  gravity  should  be  innate,  inherent  and  essential  to 
matter  so  that  one  body  may  act  upon  another  at  a  distance 
through  a  vacuum  without  the  mediation  of  anything  else, 
by  and  through  which  their  action  and  force  may  be  con- 
veyed from  one  to  another,  is  to  me  so  great  an  absurdity, 
that  I  believe  no  man  who  has  in  philosophical  matters  a 
competent  faculty  of  thinking  can  ever  fall  into  it." 

Before  the  British  Association,  Sept.  8,  1876,  Prof.  Tait 
said : 

"Why  two  masses  of  matter  possess  potential  energy  when 
separated,  in  virtue  of  which  they  are  conveniently  said  to 
attract  one  another  is  still  one  of  the  most  obscure  problems 
in  physics." 

So  also  Prof.  Challis: 

"Actio  in  distans  does  not  admit  of  being  explained  by  any 
previous  or  concomitant  knoledge,  but  if  it  be  a  reality,  must 
forever  remain  incomprehensible."* 

"But  no  scientific  theory  is  final  until  its  ultimate  postu- 
late is  inconceivable.  .  .  .  For  if  the  successively  deeper 
interpretations  of  nature  which  constitute  advancing  knowl- 
edge are  merely  successive  inclusions  of  special  truths  in 
general  truths,  and  general  truths  in  truths  still  more  general, 
it  obviously  follows  that  the  most  general  truth,  not  admitting 

*Phil.  Mag.,  1859,  13,  451. 


67 J  THE    IDEA    OF    FORCE  lOT 

of  inclusion  in  any  other,  does  not  admit  of  interpretation. 
Manifestely  as  the  most  general  cognition  at  which  we  can 
arrive  can  not  be  reduced  to  a  more  general  one,  it  can  not 
be  understood.  The  deepest  truth  which  we  can  get  at  must 
be  unaccountable."* 

It  is  indeed  true  that  continued  explanation  will  at  length 
bring  us  to  the  inexplicable;  but  this  does  not  appear  to  be 
a  sufficient  reason  why  we  should  permit  our  imagination 
to  multiply  inexplicables  unnecessarily.  There  must  of  ne- 
cessity be  one  thing  that  is  incomprehensible,  but  it  by  no 
means  follows  from  this  that  there  must  be  two.  Yet  the 
ultimate  nature  of  matter  is  inexplicable,  and  here  is  added 
to  it  the  inexplicable  entity,  force.  Now  master  is  some- 
thing which  we  know  to  exist,  if  we  know  anything;  and  no 
one  has  yet  observed,  or  even  conceived  the  idea  of,  force 
separate  from  matter.  Prof.  P.  G.  Tait  says:  "Till  we  know 
what  the  ultimate  nature  of  matter  is,  it  will  be  premature 
to  speculate  a"s  to  the  ultimate  nature  of  force." t  We  know 
that  matter  exists.  We  do  not  know  that  matter  is  incapable 
of  performing  all  the  functions  ascribed  to  force,  because  we 
do  not  know  the  ultimate  nature  and  capabilities  of  matter 
at  all.  It  is  not  explanation  and  it  is  not  science  or  logic  to 
endeavor  to  explain  a  certain  entity  or  action  by  the  supposi- 
tion ot  another  entity,  not  only  less  certain,  but  even  incon- 
ceivable. 

"In  physics  we  should  banish  the  practice  of  explaining 
phenomena  by  chimerical  principles  more  obscure  than  those 
presented  for  investigation. "$ 

It  is  far  more  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  parsimony, 
everywhere  manifested  throughout  Nature,  that  this  inex- 
plicable and  superfluous  idea  of  force  should  be  abandoned. 
Many  brilliant  students  of  Nature  have  endeavored  to  do  this, 
even  Newton  himself  as  we  have  just  seen  in  his  third  Bently 
letter. 

"Maxwell  established  the  mathematical  validity  of  the  way 

*Horbert    Spencer,    First    Principles,     (Second    Edition)    p.    73. 
tNorth  British  Review,  Feb.   1864. 
JJohn   Bernouilli,    Oper   Omnia,    sec.    32.   p.   288. 


108  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [67 

in  which  Faraday  was  accustomed  to  represent  to  himself 
the  mechanical  interactions  across  space."* 

"In  1845,  Lord  Kelvin  was  already  mathematically  formu- 
lating with  most  suggestive  success^  continuous  elastic  con- 
nections by  whose  strain  the  fields  of  electric  currents  ..  . 
would  be  illustrated.  And  so  also  Prof.  Tait,  to  whom,  as 
every  one  knows,  or  should  know,  we  owe  the  first  clear 
demonstration  of  the  dogma  that  force  has  no  objective  ex- 
istence."t 

But  after  all,  the  old  so-called  Newtonian  idea  of  attractive 
force  is  the  accepted  idea  today.  Newton  himself  in  later 
years  returned  to  it  "as  if  driven  back  from  every  assault  to 
the  only  retreat  which  in  earlier  years  he  had  stigmatized 
as  'so  great  an  absurdity'  that  no  competent  thinker  could 
'ever  fall  into  it.'  "J  Lord  Kelvin  also  confessed  that  gravi- 
tation "was  a  fundamental  fact  behind  which  it  was  impossible 
to  get."§  And  Wm.  B.  Taylor,  after  summarizing  various 
theories,  says :  §  § 

"Gravitation,  therefore,  is  not  a  motion;  nor  is  it  thte 
product  of  any  motion.  We  are  forced  to  the  conclusion,  how- 
eveit  'unable  to  conceive'  the  fact,  that  it  is  really  an  actio 
in  distans,  and  that  infinitum;  that  it  is  a  force,  a  faint  re- 
flex of  its  Author,  instantaneously  omnipresent." 

And,  later,  after  a  thorough  discussion  of  all  the  views  on 
gravitation  of  about  all  the  philosophers  of  modern  times,  he 
says  ||  that  the  usual  statement  of  the  law  of  gravitation 

"after  two  centuries  of  busy  thought  and  daring  specula- 
tion, still  remains  the  largest, .  clearest,  surest,  yet  attained 
by  man;  and  with  each  revolving  year  new  demonstrations  of 
its  absolute  precision  and  of  its  universal  domination  serve 
only  to  fill  the  mind  with  added  wonder  and  with  added  con- 
fidence in  the  stability  and  the  supremacy  of  the  power,  in 
Wihich  has  been  found  no  variableness,  neither  shadow  of 
turning,  but  which  is  the  same  yesterday,  today  and  forever." 

Some  one  has  said  that  the  more  absurd  and  inexplicable, 
if  not  even  ridiculous,  a  doctrine  appears  to  be,  the  more  ad- 

*Nature,   46,    62,   463. 

fNature,   46,    98 

$Wm.   B.   Taylor.   Gravitation,  p.   5;    Smith.   Kept.,   1876. 

§Royal    Society,    London;    Dec.    17,    1900. 

§§Nature   and   Origin    of   Force;    Smith.   Rept.,    1870. 

H  Smith.  Rept.,   1876. 


67]  THE  IDEA  OF  FORCE  109 

herents  it  usually  receives.  Mr.  Taylor  says:*  "It  may  be 
a  fact  of  natural  law  that  everything  'acts  where  it  is  not' 

.  .  and  certainly  there  is  no  difficulty  in  believing  it." 
Yet  he  quotes  exactly  such  difficulty  in  the  cases  of  many 
of  the  greatest  intellects  of  the  scientific  world!  There  is 
some  excuse,  however,  for  reluctance  in  giving  up  the  theory 
of  gravity.  Its  propounders  and  supporters  are  among  the 
greatest  leaders  of  human  thought;  it  has  long  been  generally 
accepted;  and  there  appears  today  not  even  a  straw  to  cling 
to  if  it  were  cast  away. 

But  after  all,  this  only  serves  to  emblazon  all  the  more 
the  honor  and  respect  we  owe  the  few  who  preferred  to  drift 
with  their  conscience  wherever  it  might  lead,  rather  than  to 
grasp  and  lean  upon  a  doctrine  which  they  felt  morally  cer- 
tain was  baseless  and  without  foundation  in  fact.  Several 
such  have  already  been  quoted.  This  is  an  honor  to  which 
every  one  of  them  is  justly  entitled;  and  a  fitting  conclusion 
to  the  first  Part  of  this  work  is  the  quotation  of  a  few  more. 

"In  all  cases  where  physical  motion  is  involved,  however, 
I  would  have  a  medium  sought  for;  it  may  not  be  matter, 
but  it  must  be  something;  there  must  be  a  connecting  link 
of  some  kind,  or  transference  cannot  occur.  There  can  be 
no  attraction  across  really  empty  space;  even  when  a  mate- 
rial link  exists,  so  that  the  connection  is  obvious,  the  explan- 
ation is  not  complete,  for  when  the  mechanism  of  attraction 
is  understood,  it  will  be  found  that  a  body  really  only  moves 
because  it  is  pushed  by  something  from  behind."  f 

"For  mathematical  purposes  it  has  sometimes  been  con- 
venient to  treat  a  problem  as  if  one  body  could  act  upon  an- 
other without  any  physical  medium  between  them;  but  such 
conception  has  no  degree  of  rationality,  and  I  know  of  no 
one  who  believes  in  that  as  a  fact.  If  this  be  granted,  then 
our  philosophy  agrees  with  our  experience,  and  every 
body  moves  because  it  is  pushed,  and  the  mechanical  ante- 
cedent of  every  kind  of  phenomenon  is  to  be  looked  for  in 
some  adjacent  body  possessing  energy — that  is,  the  ability 
to  push  or  produce  pressure." $ 

"Smith.   Eept.,    1876. 

tDr.  Oliver  Lodgf.  Discourse,  Royal  Institution,  London,  Feb.  21, 
1908. 

JFrof.  A.   E.   Dolboar,   Nature,   55,   &6. 


130  OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [67 

"  'The  very  idea  of  attractive  force/  as  Prof.  Brucke  re- 
marks, 'includes  that  of  action  at  a  distance/  No  principle 
will  ever  be  generally  received  that  stands  in  opposition  to 
the  old  adage,  'A  thing  cannot  act  where  it  is  not,'  any  more 
than  it  would  were  it  to  stand  in  opposition  to  that  other 
adage,  'A  thing  cannot  act  before  it  is,  or  when  it  is  not.' 
.  .  .  The  attraction  theory  is  also  in  opposition  to  the 
principle  of  the  conservation  of  force,  as  has  been  shown  I 
think  clearly  by  Faraday.*  ...  If  the  force  of  gravity 
does  not  sustain  any  loss  as  work  is  performed  by  it,  what 
then  is  it  that  is  supposed  to  sustain  the  loss?  Some  form 
of  energy  must  diminish  as  work  is  performed:  and  if  it  be 
not  gravity,  it  must  be  something  else."f 

'.'I  admit  that  two  bodies  separated  by  an  absolute  void 
cannot  act  on  each  other;  that  action  takes  place  only  by 
contact,  the  play  of  forces  following  the  laws  of  ordinary 
mechanics. "$ 

"It  may  be  said  that  force  like  this  (pressure  of  sunlight) 
must  alter  our  ordinary  ideas  of  gravitation. "§ 

"Though  the  term  attraction  may  have  been  occasionally 
used  in  the  above  to  denote  the  tendency  of  bodies  to  ap- 
proach, the  line  of  conclusions  here  indicated  tends  to  argue 
that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  attraction  in  the  sense  of  a 
pulling  force,  and  that  two  utterly  isolated  bodies  cannot  in- 
fluence one  another."  §§ 

"The  usual  idea  of  force  implies  direct  action  at  a  distance. 
.  .  .  This  idea  of  gravity  appears  to  me  to  ignore  entirely 
the  principle  of  the  conservation  of  force.  .  .  For  my  own 
part,  many  considerations  urge  my  mind  towards  the  idea  of 
a  cause  of  gravity  which  is  not  resident  in  the  particles  of 
matter  merely,  but  constantly  in  them  and  in  all  space. 
I  would  much  rather  incline  to  believe  that  bodies  affecting 
each  other  by  gravitation  act  by  lines  of  force  of  definite 
amount,  by  an  ether  affecting  all  parts  of  space,  than  admit 
that  the  conservation  of  force  could  be  dispensed  with."|| 

"I  cannot  but  suspect  that  his  speculations  on  this  mys- 
terious action  at  a  distance  contributed  not  a  little  to  the 
leading  of  the  great  English  mathematician  into  the  obscure 
labyrinth  of  mystic  dreams  and  theistic  superstition  in  which 
he  passed  the  last  thirty-four  years  of  his  life.  We  find  him 

*  James   Croll,  L.  E.D.  Phil.  Mag.,   1867,   34,   450-1. 

tlbid,    Loc.    Cit.,    1376,    2,    242. 

JM.    Lecoq   de   Boisl>adron,    Comptes   Rendus,    49,    703. 

§Prof.   Wm.   Crookes,   Quarterly  Journal  Sci.,   April,   1876,   p.   254. 
§§Prof.   Frederick  Guthrie,   L.  E.  D.   Phil.  Mag.   1870,   40,    354. 

HProf.    Michael  Faraday,   L.  E.   D.   Phil.  Mag.,    1857,    13,   228. 


67]  THE  IDEA  OF  FORCE  111 

at  the  end,  giving  metaphysical  hpotheses  on  the  predictions 
of  Daniel  and  on  the  paradoxical  fantasies  of  St.  John."* 

"Let  us  confine  ourselves  to  the  bodies  we  meet  with  on 
the  surface  of  the  earth.  Every  one  admits  that  these  would 
tall  downward,  unless  they  were  supported.  Now  the  question 
turns  on  the  real  cause  of  this  fall.  Some  say  it  is  the  earth 
wttiich  attracts  these  bodies,  by  an  inherent  power  natural 
to  it:  others  that  it  is  the  aether,  or  some  other  subtile  or 
invisible  matter,  which  impels  the  body  downward,  so  that 
the  effect  is  nevertheless  the  same  in  both  cases.  This  last 
opinion  is  most  satisfactory  to  those  who  are  fond  of  clear 
principles  in  philosophy,  as  they  do  not  see  how  two  bodies 
at  a  distance  can  act  upon  each  other  if  there  be  nothing 
between  them.  .  .  .  Let  us  suppose  that  before  the  cre- 
ation of  the  world,  God  had  created  only  two  bodies,  at  a 
distance  from  each  other;  that  absolutely  nothing  existed  be- 
tween them,  and  that  they  were  in  a  state  of  rest:  would  it 
be  possible  for  the  one  to  approach  the  other,  or  for  them  to 
have  a  propensity  to  approach?  Whence  could  arise  the  de- 
sire of  approaching?  These  are  perplexing  questions.  But 
if  you  suppose  that  the  intermediate  space  is  filled  with  a 
subtile  matter,  we  can  comprehend  at  once  that  this  matter 
may  act  upon  the  bodies  by  impelling  them.  The  effect  would 
be  the  same  as  if  they  possessed  a  power  of  mutual  attrac- 
tion. Now  as  we  know  that  the  whole  space  which  separates 
the  heavenly  bodies  is  filled  with  a  subtile  matter  called 
aether,  it  seems  more  reasonable  to  ascribe  the  mutual  at- 
traction of  the  bodies  to  an  action  which  the  aether  exer- 
cises over  them,  though  its  manner  of  acting  may  be  un- 
known to  us,  than  to  have  recourse  to  an  unintelligible  prop- 
erty. ...  As  the  idea  of  all  occult  qualities  is  now  ban- 
ished from  philosopny,  attraction  ought  not  to  be  considered 
in  this  sense. :'t 

"If  there  is  anything  certain  in  the  world,  it  is  that  mole- 
cules of  bodies  and  bodies  themselves  are  not  really  self- 
attractive;  it  is  that  attraction  is  not  an  intrinsic  but  a  de- 
veloped force;  it  is  that  notwithstanding  everything  occurs 
as  though  bodies  mutually  attracted  each  other,  it  is  in- 
contestably  true  that  bodies  do  not  so  attract.  Newton,  as  Eu- 
ler — as  every  philosopher  worthy  of  the  name — has  seen  in 
nature  but  two  things,  inertia  and  motion.  .  .  .  And  it  is 
with  these  two  great  facts  of  inertia  and  movement  that 
advancing  science  shall  ultimately  explain  all  the  phenomena 
of  the  physical  world. "J 

*Prof.  Ernst  Haeckel,    The  Riddle  of  the  Universe,  p.  217. 
tLeonard  Euler,   Letters,    Letter   68,    Oct.    18,    1860. 

JMarc  Seguin,  as  interpreted  by  Abbe  Moigno,  Cosmos,  Vol.  1,  pp. 
693-4. 


112  OBJECTIONS    TO   THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  [68 

68.  Summary  of  Part  I. — In  the  beginning  of  this  investi- 
gation of  the  theory  of  gravitation,  it  was  found  that,  strangely 
enough,  scientific  authorities  were  about  equally  divided  be- 
tween two  different  statements  of  e^en  the  main  principle  of 
that  theory,  the  law  of  gravitation;  and,  stranger  still,  that 
upon  close  examination,  either  statement  of  that  law  leads 
to  self -contradictory  and  irrational  results.  According  to 
this  law,  doubling  the  Moon's  mass,  or  doubling  the  Earth's 
mass,  has  precisely  the  same  effect  on  the  mutual  attraction 
ot  these  bodies;  or  even  doubling  an  atom  has  the  same  mu- 
tual attractive  effect  as  doubling  the  rest  of  the  universe. 
Its  assumption  of  a  location  at  the  center  of  spheres  for  the 
starting-point  of  its  influnece  is  mathematically  shown  to  be 
untenable.  Its  assertion  that  gravity  should  decrease  beneath 
the  Earth's  surface  is  contrary  to  the  results  of  actual  obser- 
vation. It  annihilates  half  the  path  of  a  body  falling  towards 
the  Earth's  center  to  form  its  theory  of  elliptic  motion.  It 
wholly  fails  to  account  for  the  great  velocities  of  the  "run- 
away stars",  which  it  is  its  province  to  govern.  The  amount 
of  heat  to  which  it  restricts  the  Sun  in  past  ages  does  not, 
from  its  own  view-point,  account  for  a  tenth  of  the  period  of 
the  Earth's  encrusted  development.  The  gravitative  effect 
it  is  supposed  to  exert  upon  a  revolving  planet  or  satellite 
to  maintain  it  in  its  orbit  is  much  greater  than  appears  to 
be  needed  for  that  purpose;  its  requirement  being  based  upon 
the  mass  of  the  revolving  body,  whereas  it  apparently  should 
be  based  upon  its  weight.  It  assigns  no  physical  cause  for 
the  enormous  changes  of  climate  upon  the  Earth's  surface 
implied  by  the  Carboniferous  and  Ice  Ages.  It  alleged  its 
complete  explanation  of  all  the  anomalies  of  planetary  and 
lunar  motions,  while  at  the  same  time  it  was  entirely  unaware 
of  the  powerful  perturbing  agency  of  sunlight  pressure.  In 
the  problem  of  three  bodies  it  breaks  down  so  completely  that 
only  the  most  fragmentary  explanation  of  this  problem  has 
ever  been  attempted  by  its  exponents;  the  motion  of  the 
Moon  in  its  orbit  around  the  Earth  being  absolutely  impos- 


6&1  THE    IDEA    OF    FORCE  11H 

sible  in  accordance  with  its  sway.  Its  subordinate  law  of 
equal  areas  in  equal  times,  by  means  of  which  it  presumes  to 
govern  the  planetary  motions,  was  found  to  be  without  founda- 
tion in  fact;  so  that  even  the  simple  problem  of  two  bodies 
is  wholly  inexplicable  by  it.  The  tides  in  the  aerial  ocean 
and  upon  isolated  lakes  and  seas  repudiate  its  claim  as  a 
chief  causal  agent;  and  the  mode  of  its  causation  of  the 
.ocean  tides  is  seen  to  be  wholly  at  variance  with  mechanical 
principles.  The  temperature  it  assigned  to  the  Sun  is  shown 
by  actual  observation  to  be  vastly  exaggerated.  The  distribu- 
tion of  the  solar  heat  which  it  prescribes  for  the  whole  of  the 
Earth's  surface  at  aphelion  and  perihelion,  and  for  portions 
of  the  Earth's  surface  at  all  times,  is  indisputably  at  variance 
with  the  observed  facts ;  and  the  amount  of  heat  it  should  send 
out  to  the  planet  Mars  is  far  exceeded  by  the  heat  which  act- 
ual observation  of  that  planet  predictates.  In  the  evolution 
of  the  Solar  System  it  affords  no  explanation  of  the  rotation 
of  the  solar  spheroid,  and,  even  if  this  rotation  were  granted, 
it  absolutely  precludes  all  separation  of  planetary  rings  and, 
consequently,  all  development  into  the  present  systemic  com- 
plexity. And,  finally,  from  inquiry  into  the  nature  of  the 
agent  itself — the  force  of  gravity — by  means  of  which  the  the- 
ory of  gravitation  is  supposed  to  act,  it  was  found  to  be  wholly 
incomprehensible;  emanating  from  a  body  through  empty 
space  to  indefinite  or  even  infinite  distances  and  acting  there 
without  any  intervening  material  connection;  ceaselessly  ac- 
complishing work,  it  matters  not  how  much  or  how  little,  yet 
ever  without  the  least  diminution  of  its  energy  and  power, 
without  the  least  regard  to  the  law  of  the  conservation  of 
energy;  infinite  and  eternal;  a  lawless  philosophical  dream; 
a  stupendous  scientific  miracle;  a  Creator! 

Goethe,  one  of  the  greatest  of  poets  and  an  indefatigable 
student  of  Nature  in  all  her  fields,  is  quoted  by  Dr.  Shoepfer 
in  a  lecture  in  Berlin  as  follows: 

"In  whatever  way  or  manner  may  have  occured  this  busi- 
ness, I  must  still  say  that  I  curse  this  modern  theory  of  cos- 
monogy,  and  hope  that  perchance  there  may  appear  in  due 


114          OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    THEORY    OF    GRAVITATION  rfig 

time  some  young  scientist  of  genius  who  will  pick  up  courage 
enough  to  upset  this  universally  disseminated  delirium  of 
lunatics.  The  terrible  thing  in  all  this  is  that  one  is  obliged 
to  repeatedly  hear  the  assurance  that  all  the  physicists  ad- 
here to  the  same  opinion  on  this  Question."* 

There  are,  indeed,  portions  of  the  phenomena  of  Nature 
to  which  the  law  of  gravitation  apparently  applies  with  per- 
fect fitness,  namely,  the  action  of  gravity  on,  and  to  some 
extent  above,  the  Earth's  surface,  and  to  certain  relations, 
considered  by  themselves,  of  the  motions  of  planets  and  sat- 
ellites around  their  primaries;  and  these  phenomena  are  so 
conspicuous  and  common  in  our  daily  experience,  and  they 
appear  to  corroborate  the  law  so  well,  that  it  to  a  large  de- 
gree excuses  the  centuries  of  faith  in  its  credibility.  But 
now,  when  we  see  how  completely  it  fails  to  account  for  the 
ordinary  phenomena  in  these  same  fields  in  other  relations, 
as  shown  in  the  preceding  pages,  we  surely  are  justified  in 
suspecting  its  veracity,  and  replacing  it,  if  possible,  by  some 
substitute  which  will  not  only  account  for  all  that  it  appears 
to  account  for,  but  also  for  all  that  it  does  not  account  for. 

To  accomplish  this  will  be  the  aim  and  purpose  of  the 
following  pages.  And  this  accomplishment  will  be  attempted 
wholly  without  the  aid  of  any  attractive  or  repulsive  force, 
or  any  force-entity  whatsoever,  or  action  at  a  distance,  or 
occult  quality  of  any  kind.  The  basic  elements  to  be  em- 
ployed are  simple  and  familiar  to  all — matter,  motion,  space, 
and  time,  of  which  alone  all  the  phenomena  of  Nature,  with- 
out exception,  appear  to  be  built  up. 

*Scientific  American  Supplement,  No.  121,  p.  1927. 


PART  II 


THE   CONNECTIVE  THEORY 


In  Nature's  infinite  book  of  secrecy,  a  little  I  can  read. 

— SHAKESPEARE. 


CHAPTER  I 


PREMISES  AND  PRINCIPLES 


Clausius  suggested*  that  the  atoms  or  groups  of  atoms 
constituting  a  molecule  revolve  around  one  another  similarly 
to  planets,  and  are  sometimes  nearer  to  and  sometimes  far- 
ther from  each  other.  The  difference  between  the  infinitely 
great  and  the  infinitely  little  is  only  one  of  degree.  The 
motions  of  the  solar  system  and  that  of  a  molecule  of  water 
are  similar.  These  motions  are  imparted  to  and  transmitted 
by  the  ether,  and  they  are  again  taken  up  by  matter.  One 
kind  of  waves  gives  us  light,  another  radiant  heat,  another 
magnetism  and  electrification.  They  move  at  a  rate  of  192, 
000  miles  per  second.— MR.  W.  H.  PREECE. 

It  seems  to  me  that  just  as  atoms  may  be  structures 
built  up  of  sub-atoms  of  some  kind,  and  just  as  molecules  of 
gases  are  built  up  of  atoms  variously  linked  together,  it  is 
reasonable  to  conceive  that  molecules  might  combine  to  form 
aggregates,  particularly  when  constituting  solids;  that  as  the 
sub-atoms  may  be  conceived  to  have  a  combining  valency — 
and  the  atoms  are  already  accredited  with  this  property,  and 
in  addition,  as  is  supposed  with  Thiele's  partial  or  Werner's 
auxiliary  valencies — molecules  may  have  valencies  also 
whereby  to  combine  into  molecular  aggregates. 

—PROF.  A.   SEN1ER. 

Valency  is  that  property  by  which  an  atom  attracts  to 
itself  other  atoms,  or  radicals,  and  its  numerical  value  is 
deduced  from  the  structural  formulae  of  compounds  in  which 
the  atom  occurs.  Glaus  seems  to  have  been  the  first  to  rec- 

*Pogg.  Ann.,   CLVI,    618. 


116  THE   CONNECTIVE  THEORY  [70 

ognize  that  this  attraction  between  two  atoms  is  not  a  con- 
stant, but  depends  on  the  nature  of  the  other  atoms  or  radi- 
cals in  the  molecule.  .  .  .  Valency  may,  therefore,  vary 
from  compound  to  compound;  it  is  known  to  alter  under  the 
influence  of  change  in  temperature,  as,  for  example,  when 
carbon  dioxide  or  phosphorous  pentachloride  undergoes  ther- 
mal dissociation.— PROF.  W.  P.  WYNNE. 

69.  Molecular    Bonds. — When    one    elementary    substance 
unites    chemically   with   another,   the   union   generally   takes 
place  between  certain  proportions  of  each  element.     One  atom 
of  chlorine,  e.  g.,  unites  with  a  single  atom  of  hydrogen,  one 
atom  of  zinc  with  two  of  hydrogen,  one  of  boron  with  three, 
one  of  silicon  with  four,  one  of  phosphorous  with  five,  atoms 
of  hydrogen;  which  substances  are  consequently  called  monad, 
dyad,  triad,  tetrad,  or  pentad,  respectively.     One  atom  of  a 
monad  can  combine  with  but  one  atom  of  another  monad; 
one  atom  of  dyad  can  combine  with  one  atom  of  another  dyad, 
or  with  two  monad  atoms;    one   atom   of  a   triad  with   onu 
atom  of  another  triad,  with  one  atom  of  a  dyad  and  one  monad 
atom,  or  with  three  monad  atoms;  and  so  on.     There  are  var- 
iations of  this  rule  owing  to  change  of  temperature  and  other 
causes;   but  there  always  remains  a  certain  degree  of  fixity 
in  it.     The  number  of  these  "atomic  bonds",  or  "units  of  af- 
finity", possessed  by  an  element  profoundly  affects  not  only 
its  combining  value,  but  also  the  photo-electric  effect  of  light 
upon  it,  the  amount  of  its  specific  heat,  the  quantity  of  elec- 
tricity each  of  its  atoms  yields  in   a   galvanic  battery,  and 
many  other  physical  properties.     These  bonds  appear  to  ap- 
ply to  molecules  as  well  as  to  atoms;  and  the  supposition  here 
to  be  made  is  that  such  bonds  are  material  and  extend,  not 
only  Detween  atoms,  sub-atoms,  and  molecules,  but  also  be- 
tween all  naturally  and  regularly  derived  bodies. 

70.  Molecular  Motion. — As  early  as  470  B.  C.,  Democritus 
taught  that  "the  atoms,  which  are  infinite  in  number  and 
form,  constitute  the  visible  universe  by  their  motions,  impact 
and  consequent  revolving  motion."     Marc  Seguin  in  1824  also 
taught  that  the  molecules  of  bodies  "circulate  around  one  an- 
other so  that  each  body,  though  it  appears  at  rest,  has  really 


70]  PREMISES  AND  PRINCIPLES  117 

a  certain  quantity  of  motion,  whose  measure  will  be  a  func- 
tion of  the  mass  and  the  velocity  of  the  molecules  in  mo- 
tion."* Mendelieff,  who  has  elaborated  this  idea  on  the  solid 
basis  of  chemistry  says: 

"This  dynamic  hypothesis  of  the  constitution  of  matter  is 
now  revived  and  the  world  of  atoms  is  regarded  as  like  the 
universe  of  heavenly  bodies,  with  its  suns,  planets,  and  met- 
eors, endued  with  everlasting  force  of  motion,  forming  mole- 
cules as  heavenly  bodies  form  systems,  like  the  solar  system, 
which  molecules  are  only  relatively  indivisible,  in  the  same 
way  as  tne  planets  of  the  solar  system  are  indivisible,  and 
stable  and  lasting  as  the  solar  system  is  lasting." 

And,  more  recently  still,  this  dynamical  molecular  structure 
is  borne  in  upon  us  with  irresistible  conviction  by  the  phe- 
nomena of  radiant  matter,  wherein  X-rays  and  alpha  and  beta 
particles  are  shot  out  of  atoms  and  molecules  with  velocities 
approximating  that  of  light. 

The  origin  of  matter  seems  utterly  beyond  our  grasp,  be- 
cause it  appears  to  be  a  necessary  limitation  of  our  being 
that  one  underlying  and  ultimate  fact  must  remain  inexplic- 
able. The  origin  of  motion  seems  easier  of  comprehension 
and  possibly  admits  of  explanation.  It  may  be  possible  that 
matter  could  exist  without  motion,  but  it  would  not  be  possi- 
ble to  conceive  this  of  all  matter,  for  though  we  can  con- 
ceive of  a  condition  of  absolute  zero  of  temperature,  which 
means  a  state  devoid  of  all  minor  motions  of  matter,  concep- 
tion itself  implies  mental  action,  which  can  exist  only  by 
means  of  molecular  motion.  As  a  matter  of  fact  we  know  of 
no  matter  free  from  motion,  any  more  than  we  know  of  mo- 
tion free  from  matter,  and  there  are  worlds  of  motion  which 
until  recently  have  been  wholly  unknown  to  us.  There  art, 
motions  of  almost  inconceivable  minuteness  of  range,  of  ap- 
parently inscrutable  complexity,  and  of  almost  incomprehen- 
sible velocity,  all  lying  hidden  in  the  commonest  objects 
around  us.  The  book  lying  upon  the  table,  the  stone  resting 
upon  the  ground,  are  each  a  volume  of  motions  of  marvelous 
intricacy,  minuteness,  and  speed;  and  only  by  the  different 

*The  Edinlmrgh  Phil.  Jour.,  Oct.   1824;   10,  280-2. 


118  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [71 

motions  of  each  are  we  able  to  distinguish  them  as  to  color, 
taste,  smell,  or  touch.  Even  our  own  bodies  are  only  aggre- 
gates of  still  more  complex  system^  of  motions  by  means  of 
which  only  are  we  able  to  distinguish  the  different  kinds  and 
properties  of  matter.  Our  Solar  System,  yea  even  our  Sider- 
eal System,  seems  but  little  more  intricate  in  structure  and 
in  the  maze-like  number  of  its  constituent  bodies  and  sys- 
tems, than  the  molecule  and  the  atom.  The  spectrum  of  the 
simplest  element,  hydrogen,  consists  of  not  less  than  1600 
lines*  each  of  which,  no  doubt,  represents  a  systemic  motion 
of  different  magnitude  existing  within  the  domains  of  every 
atom  of  the  gas.t  A  new  universe  is  here  opening  before 
us  of  which  even  the  foremost  intellects  have  as  yet  but  the 
faintest  conception. 

71.  Planetary  Bonds. — Now  if  these  minor  aggregates  and 
sub-aggregates  of  matter  have  orbital  motions  like  the  planets, 
and  have  units  of  affinity,  or  material  bonds,  holding  them  to 
the  primaries  or  suns  of  their  systems,  it  seems  only  reason- 
able to  suppose  that  the  planets  also  have  similar  material 
bonds  holding  them  to  the  Sun,  or  primary  of  the  planetary 
system,  in  the  same  manner. 

Probably,  to  most  readers,  this  idea  of  planetary  material 
bonds  may  seem  extremely  airy  and  inept,  even  incredible. 
But  really  what  is  the  difference  except  magnitude,  between 
the  chemical  elements,  or  molecules  and  atoms,  and  the 
cosmical  elements,  or  heavenly  bodies?  and  why  should 
not  the  latter  have  connecting  bonds  by  means  of  which  they 
would  remain  attached  in  a  cosmical  molecule  or  system,  just 
the  same  as  the  former  do  in  a  chemical  molecule?  If  plan- 
etary bonds  were  familiar  to  us  and  atomic  bonds  unknown, 
belief  in  the  latter  then  would  no  doubt  have  the  same  inertia 
to  overcome  as  in  the  former  now. 

We  cannot  say  that  we  have  no  evidence  of  these  plane- 

*Nature,  39,   370. 

tThis  at  least  appears  to  be  the  view  of  the  majority,  though  there 
are  a  few  who  hold  that  the  different  lines  of  the  spectrum  of  a  sub- 
stance may  be  due  to  different  atoms  of  that  substance.  The  invariable 
uniformity  cf  elementary  spectra  under  uniform  conditions  of  temper- 
ature and  pressure  is,  however,  strongly  against  the  latter  view. 


72]  PREMISES   AND    PRINCIPLES  119 

tary  bonds,  because  there  are  too  many  phenomena  in  the 
heavens  of  the  nature  of  which  we  confessedly  know  nothing. 
The  tails  of  comets,  which  increase  in  magnitude  as  they  ap- 
proach the  Sun,  are  not  at  all  unlikely  to  be  accumulations 
upon  the  comets  of  the  bond-substance  which  extends  between 
them  and  the  Sun.  The  zodiacal  light  which  extends  from 
the  Sun  in  one  fixed  direction  (the  astronomers  say  two  di- 
rections, at  least,  see  Art.  137)  far  out  into  the  starry  system 
— may  it  not  be  the  bond  connecting  the  Sun  with  its  primary 
system?  Approximately  at  right  angles  to  this  direction  also 
lies  the  solar  apex,  the  point  in  the  heavens  towards  which, 
astronomers  say,  the  Solar  System  actually  moves.  And  the 
solar  corona,  which  stretches  in  great  streamers  outwards 
from  the  Sun's  surface  to  great  distances,  and  which  very 
slowly  revolve  around  the  Sun  at  various  speeds  between  one 
solar  eclipse  and  another — apparently  in  exact  correspondence 
with  the  movements  of  the  planets — may  these  not  be  the 
inner  ends  of  the  bonds  connecting  the  Sun  with  the  revolv- 
ing planets?  All  these  hitherto  mysterious  phenomena  cer- 
tainly seem,  at  least  at  a  first  glance,  to  be  exactly  similar 
to  such  appearances  as  we  should  expect  such  planetary 
bonds  to  make. 

72.  Designation  and  Essential  Principles  of  the  New  The- 
ory.— Now  this  is  the  main  principle  of  the  theory  here  ad- 
vanced— that  every  regular  heavenly  body,  of  whatever  size, 
is  connected  with  its  neighboring  heavenly  bodies  by  real, 
ethereal  bonds.  This  and  one  other  principle,  derivable  from 
the  first,  namely,  that  all  bodies  have  ethereal  atmospheres 
in  connection  with  their  ethereal  bonds,  constitute  the  basic 
elements  of  the  theory  which  are  new;  and  these  in  connection 
with  the  elements  of  motion,  space,  time,  and  the  ordinary 
physical  laws,  appear  to  be  all  that  is  necessary  to  account  for 
all  the  phenomena  of  which  the  human  organism,  as  now 
known,  is  capable  of  taking  cognizance. 

The  chief  principle  of  the  new  theory  being  the  existence 
of  material  bonds,  or  connexions  (as  they  will  henceforth  be 


120  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [73 

termed),  between  all  regularly  derived  bodies,  the  theory  may 
be  designated  by  the  special  name,  connective  theory. 

These  principles  are  not  asserted  here  as  facts,  but  only 

. 
as  premises   or  assumptions   for  temporary   guidance,   to  be 

ultimately  accepted  or  rejected  according  to  their  agreement 
or  disagreement  with  the  phenomena  of  cosmical  evolution, 
as  these  phenomena  are  investigated  in  connection  with  them. 
With  this  brief  statement  of  the  premises  now  before  us, 
the  argument  from  the  rational  investigation  of  cosmical  evo- 
lution will  be  next  in  order;  after  which  the  conclusion  will 
be  left  to  the  reader  himself.  And  the  same  primitive  stage  of 
evolution  may  here  be  commenced  with  that  was  considered 
in  connection  with  the  theory  of  gravitation. 


CHAPTER  II 


EVOLUTION  OF  THE  SOLAR  SYSTEM 


Truth  cannot  speak  with  two  voices,  and  the  laws  of 
nature  cannot  give  contradictory  results. — SAMUEL  LAING. 

We  must  deal  strictly  with  the  facts  in  accordance  with 
the  rules  of  philosophizing;  i.  e.,  we  must  never  have  a  com- 
plicated explanation  until  we  are  perfectly  certain  that  a 
simple  explanation  will  not  do,  and  the  simplest  explanation 
of  all  is  that  which  occurs  most  frequently  in  the  region  of 
facts.— J.  NORMAN  LOCKYER. 

For  the  law  of  logic  which  Sir  William  Hamilton  called 
the  law  of  parsimony — or  the  law  which  forbids  us  to  assume 
the  operation  of  higher  causes  when  lower  ones  are  found 
sufficient  to  explain  the  observed  effects — this  law  consti- 
tutes the  only  logical  barrier  between  science  and  supersti- 
tion.—GEORGE  J.  ROMANES. 

73.  The  Original  Solar  Spheroid.— The  primary  concep- 
ceptions  of  the  new  theory  are  little  different  from  those  of 
the  nebular  hypothesis.  These  conceptions  are  that  the  Solar 
System  was  once  a  vast  rotating  spheroid  of  vapor,  nearly  or 
quite  homogeneous,  the  equator  of  which  probably  extended 


74]  EVOULTION   OF   THE   SOLAR   SYSTEM  121 

outwards  on  all  sides  nearly  to  Neptune's  orbit;  and  that  this 
vapor  was  made  up  of  minute,  but  distinct,  component  parts 
having  some  material  connexions  with  one  another  by  virtue 
of  which  the  vapor  would  cohere  within  certain  limits,  and 
its  component  parts,  if  unrestrained,  would  tend  to  lessen  the 
distance  between  them.  This  tendency  of  the  component 
parts  to  approach  one  another  may  seem  not  unlike  the  at- 
raction  of  gravity;  but  the  two  are  not  necessarily  identical. 
There  are  other  agencies  that  cause  approximation  of  parts 
besides  gravity,  such,  for  example,  as  magnetism,  electricity, 
and  loss  of  heat.  The  connexions  here  premised  between  the 
ultimate  parts  of  the  vapor,  and  tending  to  hold  or  approximate 
them  to  each  other,  are  supposed  to  be  highly  elastic,  and, 
in  support  of  this  view,  it  may  be  mentioned  here  that  New- 
ton and  Faraday  have  thought  that  gravitation  itself  would 
find  its  true  explanation  by  means  of  some  such  material 
agency  as  is  here  conceived.  As  to  whether  the  original  solar 
spheroid  was  intensely  heated,  or  even  heated  at  all  in  the 
ordinary  sense  of  that  word,  seems  uncertain.  Heat  is  a  mode 
of  motion,  and  there  appear  to  be  many  degrees,  or  different 
modes,  of  such  motion,  forming  a  regular  series,  similar  to  the 
wavelengths  of  the  solar  spectrum,  of  which  the  modes  that 
are  sensible  to  us  may  be  comparatively  few,  and  belonging 
perhaps  to  the  middle  portion.  It  may  not  be  impossible, 
therefore,  that,  if  the  processes  by  which  bodies  become  to 
us  intensely  heated  were  further  intensified  to  a  certain  de- 
gree, the  resulting  mode  "of  motion  would  no  longer  be  sensi- 
ble to  us  as  heat,  and  it  may  even  be  possible  that,  if  the 
intensification  of  the  heating  process  were  sufficiently  great, 
the  resulting  mode  of  motion  would  not  be  sensible  to  us  at 
all.  It  seems  not  improbable  that  this  last  condition  would 
be  that  of  the  original  solar  spheroid,  its  density  being  prob- 
ably far  below  that  of  the  most  perfect  vacuum  that  man  can 
produce. 

74.  Surface  Contraction  and  Development. — Our  premises, 
then,  once  more,  are  a  vast  rotating  spheroid  of  vapor,  nearly 
or  quite  homogeneous,  and  made  up  of  minute  parts  having 


122  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [74 

connexions  between  them,  by  virtue  of  which  the  mass  co- 
heres, and,  under  certain  circumstances,  the  parts  may  ap- 
proach one  another.  From  these  premises  it  would  follow 
that  those  parts  situated  on  the  surface  of  the  sphere  would 
have  the  greater  liberty  of  action,  because  they  are  not  in- 
fluenced by  other  parts  upon  their  outer  sides,  while  the  sub- 
jacent parts  are  thus  influenced  on  all  sides.  For  this  reason, 
these  parts  would  tend  to  approach  their  subjacent  neighbors 
and  form  with  them  a  closer  union.  What  the  nature  of  this 
union  would  be,  cannot  be  stated  with  certainty  at  present; 
but  it  may  be  supposed  that  the  two  adjacent  layers  of  sur- 
face parts  would  eventually  join  together  in  forming  consoli- 
dated groups  of  component  parts,  which  may  be  designated 
by  the  term  sub-atom,  each  sub-atom  being  connected  with  its 
neighbors,  much  in  the  same  manner  as  the  primordial  parts, 
save  that  the  connexions  of  the  former  may  be  more  complex. 
This  change  in  the  structure  of  the  two  surface  layers  from 
approximate  homogeneity  to  comparative  heterogeneity  would 
allow  to  the  third  layer  a  greater  liberty  of  inward  motion; 
and  this  layer,  or  some  of  its  component  parts,  would  tend 
to  approach  the  fourth  layer  of  component  parts,  though  per- 
haps more  slowly  than  the  parts  of  the  first  layer.  Thus 
would  be  formed  a  second  layer  of  sub-atoms;  and  in  much 
the  same  way  would  be  formed  a  third,  a  fourth,  a  fifth,  layer 
of  sub-atoms;  though  quite  probably  each  successive  layer, 
owing  to  the  influence  of  the  outer  heterogeneous  layers, 
would  require  a  much  greater  time  to  form  than  the  preceding 
layer.  Now  the  same  causes  that  made  the  original  surface 
components  approach  their  subjacent  neighbors  would  also 
operate  upon  the  surface  sub-atoms.  These  would  approach 
the  second  layer  of  sub-atoms  and  form  with  them  a  layer 
of  units  still  more  compound,  having  still  more  complex  re- 
lations with  the  simpler  sub-atoms  and  with  one  another. 
And  so  also  a  third  and  a  fourth  layer.  In  the  same  manner 
would  also  be  formed  still  more  compound  units,  eventually 
arriving  at  the  atomic  and  the  molecular  stages;  and  we  ap- 
parently have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  this  process  would 


75]  EVOLUTION    OF   THE    SOLAR    SYSTEM  123 

not  continue,  or  to  draw  a  line  beyond  which,  if  left  to  it- 
self, it  would  cease. 

These  views  are  corroborated  and  further  illustrated  by 
the  following  instructive  extract  from  the  presidential  ad- 
dress of  Prof.  William  Crookes  at  the  fifty-sixth  annual  meet- 
ing of  the  British  Association: 

"In  the  course  of  time,  some  process  akin  to  cooling,  prob- 
ably internal,  reduces  the  temperature  of  the  cosmic  protyle 
to  a  point  at  which  the  first  steps  in  granulation  take  place; 
matter  as  we  know  it  comes  into  existence,  and  atoms  are 
formed.  As  soon  as  an  atom  is  formed  out  of  protyle  it  is  a 
store  of  energy,  potential  (from  its  tendency  to  coalesce 
with  other  atoms  by  gravitation  or  chemically)  and  kinetic 
.(from  its  internal  motions).  To  obtain  this  energy,  the 
neighboring  protyle  must  be  refrigerated  by  it,  and  thereby 
the  subsequent  formation  of  other  atoms  will  be  accelerated. 
But  with  atomic  matter  the  various  forms  of  energy  which 
/require  matter  to  render  them  evident  begin  to  act;  and, 
amongst  others,  that  form  of  energy  which  has  for  one  of 
its  factors  what  we  now  call  atomic  weight.  Let  us  assume 
that  the  elementary  protyle  contains  within  itself  the  poten- 
tiality of  every  possible  combining  proportion  or  atomic 
weight.  Let  it  be  granted  that  the  whole  of  our  known  ele- 
ments were  not  at  this  epoch  simultaneously  created.  The 
easiest  formed  element,  the  one  most  nearly  allied  to  the 
protyle  in  simplicity,  is  first  born.  Hydrogen — or  shall  we 
say  helium? — of  all  the  known  elements  the  one  of  simplest 
structure  and  lowest  atomic  weight,  is  the  first  to  come  into 
being.  For  some  time  hydrogen  would  be  the  only  form  or 
matter  (as  we  know  it)  in  existence,  and  between  hydrogen 
and  the  next  formed  element  there  would  be  a  considerable 
gap  in  time,  during  the  latter  part  of  which  the  element  next 
in  order  of  simplicity  would  be  slowly  approaching  its  birth- 
point;  pending  this  period  we  may  suppose  that  the  evolu- 
tionary process,  which  soon  was  to  determine  the  birth  of  a 
new  element,  would  also  determine  its  atomic  weight,  its 
affinities,  and  its  chemical  position. 

"In  the  original  genesis,  the  longer  the  time  occupied  in 
that  portion  of  the  cooling  down  during  which  the  hardening 
of  the  protyle  into  atoms  took  place,  the  more  sharply  defined 
would  be  the  resulting  elements ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  with 
more  irregularity  in  the  original  cooling  we  should  have  a 
nearer  approach  to  the  state  of  the  elemental  family  as  we 
know  it  at  present." 

75.  Surface  Rigidity  and  Ring-Formation. — The  sphere  Is 
premised  to  have  a  rotatory  motion;  and  this  motion  would 


124  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [75 

have  some  effect  upon  the  molecules.  These  bodies,  owing  to 
the  approach  of  their  constituent  parts,  would  obviously  be 
much  denser  than  the  original  vapor;  and  it  is  well  known  to 
us  that  in  a  revolving  mass,  whjen  the  constituent  particles 
have  freedom  of  motion,  the  denser  of  them  will  invariably 
seek  the  circumference.  Moreover,  there  would  be  a  move- 
ment of  the  molecules  towards  that  portion  of  the  circum- 
ference having  the  greatest  amount  of  motion;  i.  e.,  the  equa- 
tor of  the  spheroid.  For  if  we  are  to  judge  from  analogy, 
the  connexions  of  the  primordial  molecules  and  atoms  would 
be  readily  transferable  from  one  to  another,  even  more  so 
than  in  the  case  of  gases  and  vapors  upon  the  Earth.  So 
that  these  developed  molecules  would  glide  slowly  over  their 
subjacent  neighbors  towards  the  more  swiftly  rotating  equa- 
torial regions.  In  course  of  ages  a  ring  of  compound  par- 
ticles would  thus  aggregate  near  the  equator;  and,  at  the 
same  time,  the  surface  development  would  be  continually  pro- 
gressing, both  inwards  into  the  sphere  and  into  greater  and 
greater  complexity  of  surface  structure.  As  already  intimaf 
ed,  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  reason  whatever  for  as- 
signing any  particular  limit  to  this  development.  And  it 
seems  evident  that  its  uninterrupted  continuance  would  event- 
ually result  in  a  rigidity  of  the  surface  matter,  particularly 
at  the  equator,  where  the  developed  structure  would  be  much 
the  thickest.  The  rigidity  would  spread  slowly  from  the  equa- 
tor to  the  poles;  the  internal  development  still  going  on,  and 
the  equatorial  flow  of  compound  molecules  taking  place  on  the 
inside  of  the  rigid  structure. 

The  rigidity,  increasing  with  increasing  thickness,  would 
eventually  resist  further  contraction  at  the  equator;  the  less 
rigid  polar  regions  still  following  the  contracting  body  of  the 
sphere,  in  obedience  to  its  connexions  with  that  body.  But 
the  rigidity  would  continually  spread  towards  the  poles,  thus 
gradually  forming  a  solid  ring  concave  to  the  sphere,  the 
concavity  being  filled  with  partially  developed  original  vapor. 

At  this  stage,  probably,  as  the  sphere  contracts  its  vol- 
ume, a  space  would  be  formed  between  it  and  the  ring.  The 


76]  EVOLUTION    OF   THE   SOLAR    SYSTEM  125 

molecular  connexions  between  the  two  would  become  elong- 
gated  and  refined  in  the  vast  laboratory;  their  tension,  as 
the  space  widens,  being  relieved  by  the  addition  of  the  gaseous 
atoms  or  molecules  of  the  sphere. 

76.  Ring-Separation. — It  seems  probable  that  the  polar 
regions,  having  previously  become  rigid,  but  having  the  weak- 
er crust,  would  eventually  begin  slowly  to  fracture  and  bend 
inwards  owing  to  the  continual  strain  upon  their  connexions 
with  the  sphere;  and  at  the  same  time  the  equatorial  portion 
of  the  ring  would  slowly  move  outwards  owing  to  its  rota- 
tion, thus  gradually  stretching  itself  to  a  greater  diameter 
and  depth  and  lessening  is  thickness.  Both  the  fracture  and 
the  expansion  might  at  first  be  extremely  slow — far  more  so, 
perhaps,  than  the  gradual  sinking  or  elevation  of  certain  por- 
tions of  the  Earth,  which  geology  brings  to  our  notice;  and 
which  is  generally  no  greater  than  an  inch  or  two  in  a  cen- 
tury. But  the  process  would  continue;  and  in  the  course  of 
a  very  great  lapse  of  time,  the  ring  would  have  separated 
wholly  from  the  sphere,  save  for  the  inchoate  connexion  or 
bond  of  attachment  between  the  two  bodies.  Before  the  sep- 
aration of  the  ring  from  the  sphere,  but  during  the  process  in 
which  the  separation  culminated,  the  polar  regions  of  the  orig- 
inal crust,  still  adhering  to  the  surface  of  the  sphere,  would 
approach  more  and  more  towards  the  equator  as  the  equator- 
ial portion  continually  recedes  by  the  continual  tension  of 
the  ring  itself  and  the  increasing  contraction  of  the  sphere. 
So  that,  at  the  point  of  separation,  the  ring  would  be  a  broad 
and  flat  body  lying  in  the  sphere's  equatorial  plane;  in  which 
its  thickness  would  be  about  double  the  thickness  of  the  or- 
iginal crust;  the  greatest  material  thickness  of  the  ring  being 
obviously  at  the  outer  edge,  where  the  crust  was  originally 
the  thickest. 

The  following  quotation  illustrates  the  earlier  stages  of 
this  ring-separation: 

"The  restriction  of  the  fiord  areas  to  high  northern  and 
southern  latitudes  gives  a  clue  to  the  cause  of  the  fiord  move- 
ments. They  may  be  explained  as  a  deformation  of  the  earth 


126  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [78 

which  is  more  marked  in  the  polar  than  in  the  tropical  zones. 
If  a  flexible  circular  band  be  rotated  about  its  axis,  it  be- 
comes oval,  and  the  radial  movement  is  greater  on  the  flat- 
tened polar  sides  than  on  the  raised  equatorial  zone.  The 
deformation  of  the  earth  which  produced  the  fiords  caused 
greater  vertical  movements  in  the  polar  and  circumpolar 
regions  than  in  the  tropics,  and  the  fiords  are  characteristic 
of  higher  latitudes."* 

77.  Disruption  of  the  Ring  Into  the  Planetary  Form. — It 
may  chance  that  some  sudden  violence  of  the  polar  fractures 
of  the  crust,  as  the  projection  of  the  ring  proceeds,  would 
cause  the  collapse  of  the  whole  equatorial  crust  upon  itself; 
upon  itself  partly  because  the  molecular  connexions  generated 
in  the  developed  structure  of  the  crust  would  reasonably  be 
much  more  powerful  than  the  connexions  between  the  crust 
and  the  undeveloped  sphere;    and  partly  for  reasons  to  be 
noticed  farther  on.     If  any  violence  of  the  polar  fractures 
does  not  occur  to  disrupt  it  (which  it  seems  would  generally 
be  the  case  owing  to  the  extreme  slowness  of  their  occur- 
ence),  the  ring  would  continue  to  expand  its  circumference, 
diminishing  its  depth  and  thickness;   and  it  might  maintain 
its  equilibrium  in  this  state  for  a  very  long  period  indeed. 
But  obviously  such  expansion  could  not  last  forever.     Event- 
ually some  irregularity,  either  in  the  structure  or  in  the  ex- 
pansion, or  in  both,  would  suddenly  destroy  its  balance;  the 
disruption  of  the  ring  would  quickly  ensue,  and  (owing  to  the 
superior  strength  of  its  own  molecular  connexions)  its  sub- 
stance would  aggregate  into .  a  sphere  in  some  point  of  its 
circumference. 

The  ring's  connexion  with  the  original  sphere,  which  had 
been  continually  fabricated  and  supplied  as  the  separation  of 
the  two  bodies  proceeded,  would  follow  the  fractured  por- 
tions of  the  ring,  and  finally,  upon  the  spherical  formation 
of  the  latter,  would  aggregate  into  a  cylindrical  bond  between 
the  new-born  planet  and  its  parent. 

78.  Corroborative  Evidences. — 

(a).     Of  Initial  Solidification  at  the  Surface. — Let  us  here 

*Prof.  J.  W.  Gregory,  Lecture,  Midland  Institute,  Birmingham.  Jan. 
22,  1912. 


78]  EVOLUTION  OF  THE  SOLAR  SYSTEM  12? 

pause  tor  a  moment.  It  would  be  a  very  unusual  thing  in- 
deed if  such  novel  ideas  as  these  would  not  be  received  with 
doubting  hesitation,  or  even  emphatic  incredulity,  especially 
in  the  case  of  grizzled  veterans  of  science  who  have  all  their 
lives  accepted  unreservedly  diametrically  opposite  ideas.  But 
— and  the  appeal  is  directed  particularly  at  these  same  veter- 
ans— what  idea  in  the  foregoing  articles  is  it  that  can  be  re- 
garded as  specially  unworthy  of  our  credence?  Apparently 
it  cannot  be  the  equatorial  flow  of  the  denser  molecules,  for 
that  seems  undeniable  on  the  ground  of  terrestial  analogies. 
It  is  well  known  that  when  bodies  of  different  densities  are 
mechanically  mixed  in  an  inclosed  space  and  then  caused  to 
rotate  with  a  speed  sufficient  to  overcome  gravity,  their  parts 
having  liberty  of  motion,  the  denser  will  always  move  towards 
the  circumference.  It  is  true  that,  if  the  attraction  of  gravity 
were  supposed  to  operate  upon  the  newly  formed  molecules, 
in  accordance  with  the  law  of  inverse  squares,  their  equator- 
ial flow  would  not  then  be  indisputable:  although,  indeed,  it 
may  be  remarked,  as  illustrating  the  confusion  to  which  the 
assumption  of  such  an  atraction  leads,  that  the  most  eminent 
physicists  are  by  no  means  agreed  as  to  where  solidification 
really  would  begin.  While  some  (among  whom  are  Sir  Will- 
iam Thomson,  Prof.  G.  H.  Darwin,  Newcomb,  Hopkins,  and 
Mallet)  hold  that  it  would  begin  at  the  center,  others  (among 
whom  are  Leibnitz,  Descartes,  Delaunay,  Hennesly,  Scrope, 
Babbage,  and  Airy)  hold  that  it  would  begin  at  the  surface; 
and  the  question  still  remains  unsettled. 

In  a  work  by  T.  M.  Keade,  entitled  "The  Origin  of  Moun- 
tain Ranges",  in  which  he  attacks  the  theory  of  central  solid- 
ification, the  following  quotation  is  given*  from  Captain  Dut- 
ton,  of  the  U.  S.  Geol.  Survey: 

"The  line  of  argument  which  is  relied  upon  to  maintain 
a  cooling  globe  proves,  when  pushed  to  its  consequences, 
that  the  great  interior  of  the  Earth  has  not,  as  yet,  undergone 
any  sensible  amount  of  cooling.  The  only  cooling  which  that 
argument  admits  of  has  been  located  in  a  thin  external  shell. 
.  .  .  In  short,  the  cooling  would  be  only  skin  deep,  while 
the  nucleus  would  be  as  hot  as  ever." 

*Page    126,    Note. 


128  THE   CONNECTIVE   THEORY  [78 

Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  also  shows*  the  rational  superiority 
of  the  view  that  liquefaction  and  solidification  would  first 
take  place  upon  the  Sun's  surface,  while  its  internal  regions 
would  be  still  gaseous.  M.  Folie  pointed  out  before  the 
Paris  Academy  of  Sciences  f  that  the  astronomical  consid- 
erations which  led  Sir  William  Thomson  and  others  to  the 
belief  that  the  Earth  was  centrally  solid,  proves,  on  the  con- 
trary, beyond  doubt,  the  fluid  state  of  the  interior  of  the 
globe,  surrounded  by  a  relatively  thin  outer  crust.  And  an 
editorial  in  NatureJ,  speaking  of  the  "supposition  made  by 
Sir  W.  Thomson  as  to  the  way  in  which  the  Earth  cooled", 
says:  "There  have  been  people  bold  enough  to  think  that 
in  making  this  supposition,  a  great  master  of  physics  for  once 
lent  his  name  to  an  hypothesis  which  is  in  itself,  physically 
not  very  probable."  Yet,  of  course,  the  attraction  of  gravi- 
tation is  premised  by  these  authorities;  while  in  the  present 
work  that  attraction  would  be  profoundly  modified  (diminish- 
ed) by  other  circumstances;  as  will  be  explained  more  fully 
farther  on. 

A  fact  which  seems  to  be  a  general  principle  of  matter, 
and  which  furnishes  a  valuable  corroboration  of  the  position 
here  taken  is  that,  even  when  subject  to  gravity,  matter  in 
the  solid  form,  such  as  ice,  type-metal,  iron,  glass,  melted 
rock  and  earth,  etc.,  will  float  upon  the  same  matter  in  a 
liquid  or  molten  state.  §  In  any  case,  therefore,  it  is  hardly 
to  be  doubted  that  solidification  from  processes  akin  to  cool- 
ing would  begin  on  the  surface  of  the  globe  and  gradually 
extend  downwards. 

(b).  Of  Ultimate  Crust  Rigidity.— The  ultimate  rigidity 
of  the  crust  can  hardly  be  a  ground  for  incredulity  for  the 
reason  that  we  cannot  assign  any  proximate  limit  to  the  mole- 
cular development,  and  because,  if  the  ultimate  rigidity  be 
denied,  no  conceivable  cause  can  be  assigned  for  the  projection 
of  the  ring  from  the  contracting  spheroid  (see  Art.  63.). 

*Recent  Discussions  in  Science,  p.  2 9  ?. 
tJan.    3,    1887. 
J35,    861. 

§Nature,  16,  23;  Am.  Jour.  Sci..  Ill,  8,  287;  Nature,  26,  138;  Scrope, 
Volcanoes,  pp.  84,  487;  Chemical  News,  18,  191. 


78]  CORROBORATIVE  EVIDENCES  129 

The  same  idea,  in  a  somewhat  cruder  form,  has  been  indors- 
ed by  good  scientific  authorities.  As  far  back  as  1862,  the  late 
Rev.  O.  Fisher  "suggested  that,  when  according  to  Sir  G.  H. 
Darwin's  view,  the  moon  broke  away  from  the  earth  and  com- 
menced an  independent  existence,  the  scar  left  by  the  great 
catastrophe  forms  now  the  basin  of  the  Pacific  Ocean.  The 
same  idea  was  elaborated  five  years  later  by  Prof.  Pickering 
(Jour,  of  Geol.,  vol.  15,  No.  1,  1907).*  Also  Prof  G.  K.  Gil- 
vert  in  his  address  to  the  Philosophical  Society  of  Washing- 
ton, D.  C.,  1892,  gave  it  as  his  theory  that  the  Earth  was  at 
one  time  attended  by  a  ring  similar  to  that  which  encircles 
the  planet  Saturn,  and  that  this  afterwards  "gradually  coal- 
esced, gathering  first  around  a  large  number  of  nuclei  and 
finally  all  uniting  in  a  sphere,'  the  moon." 

"If  the  material  which  now  constitutes  the  moon  was  in 
any  way  detached  from  the  earth,  the  matter  so  detached 
cannot  have  coalesced  into  a  single  sphere  until  Roche's  limit 
was  reached,  which  would  be  2.44  of  fhe  earth's  radii  from  its 
center.  During  this  initial  stage  of  the  moon's  existence  the 
nearest  analogy  seems  to  be  found  in  Saturn's  rings.  Hut 
the  difficulty  remains  why  the  matter  detached  should  not 
have  fallen  back  again."! 

"There  is  some  evidence  to  show  that  the  actual  materials 
that  once  formed  part  of  our  globe  were  transferred  to  our 
satellite,  and  this  probability  is  strengthened  by  the  agree- 
ment between  the  density  of  the  moon  and  that  of  the  super- 
ficial rocks  of  the  earth.  Indeed,  as  the  author  reminds  us, 
there  are  not  wanting  those  who  can  point  to  the  exact  spot 
where  the  catastrophe  occurred  that  in  times  past  tore  from 
the  earth  the  eightieth  part  of  its  mass."$ 

(c).     Of    the    Equatorial     Crust     Expansion. — It    may    be 

thought  that  the  circumferential  expansion  of  the  solid  ring 
away  from  the  sphere's  center  is  a  doubtful  assumption;  but 
it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  expansion  is  supposed 
to  take  place  very  slowly  and  gradually,  requiring,  especially 
at  first,  a  vast  period  to  produce  scarcely  a  measurable  re- 
sult. However  small  the  centrifugal  strain  upon  the  ring, 

*Nature,   92,    714. 

tO.   Fisher;   Nature,   93,   214. 

JReviewer;    Nature,    87,    3. 


130  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [78 

as  it  is  not  supposed  to  be  counteracted  by  the  ordinary  attrac- 
tion of  gravity,  and  falling  upon  its  connexion  with  the  sphere, 
some  yielding  of  that  connexion  would  take  place,  which  would 
certainly  have  a  tendency  to  expajid  the  ring.  Even  though 
the  strength  of  the  ring-connexion  be  quite  sufficient  at  first 
to  withstand  the  centrifugal  strain,  another  consideration  sug- 
gests that  the  strain  would  gradually  become  more  and  more 
powerful,  and,  falling  upon  the  ring-connexion,  must  cause 
it  to  elongate.  This  consideration  is  that  the  ring  and  the 
parent  spheroid  would  probably  continue  to  rotate  at  about 
the  same  rate  of  angular  velocity.  The  parent  spheroid, 
being  continually  contracting  its  volume,  owing  to  continual 
surface  development,  would  thus  continually  but  gradually 
increase  its  angular  velocity.  A  portion  of  this  increase  of 
angular  velocity  would  be  transmitted  by  the  intervening 
connexion  to  the  ring,  and  the  absolute  velocity  of  the  latter 
would  thus  be  increased  at  the  obvious  expense  of  the  ab- 
solute velocity  of  the  spheroid.  It  is  quite  possible  that  this 
increase  of  angular  velocity  of  the  spheroid  would  take  place 
contemporaneously  with  a  diminution  of  its  absolute  velocity. 
The  absolute  velocity  of  the  ring  would  thus  continually  in- 
crease; and  the  consequent  centrifugal  tension  upon  it,  trans- 
ferred gradually  through  its  molecular  connexions  to  the  ring- 
connexion,  would  eventually  become  so  great  that  that  must 
yield  and  elongate.  Moreover  it  is  undeniable  on  other 
grounds  that  however  rigid  a  ring  of  such  vast  diameter  may 
be,  the  strain,  if  long  continued,  would  not  be  without  an 
effect.  Prof.  Tyndall  has  shown  us  ("Forms  of  Water")  that 
vast  rivers  of  solid  ice  actually  flow  in  their  beds  or  channels. 
He  has  measured  the  motion  of  the  Mer  de  Glace  and  found 
it  to  be  quite  similar  to  that  of  water,  only  much  more  slow. 
And  there  is  no  end  of  evidence  transmitted  down  from  the 
great  Ice  Age  proving  the  tremendous  power  of  glaciers  in 
grinding  and  polishing  the  rocky  sides  of  the  valleys  through 
which  they  flowed,  and  in  piling  up  the  vast  moraines  or  heaps 
of  detritus  which  they  deposited  where  they  terminated  in 
the  ocean.  The  influence  that  causes  the  ice  to  flow  is  the 


78]  CORROBORATIVE  EVIDENCES  131 

attraction  of  gravity,  exerted  upon  the  ice  in  an  almost  level 
bed.  The  power  of  the  strain  which  causes  it  thus  to  move 
nearly  horizontally  may  be  very  small  indeed;  but  it  is  un- 
varying and  continual  and  so  eventually  produces  very  per- 
ceptible effects.  Yet  ice  is,  in  a  degree  rigid.  It  is  not  so 
rigid  as  some  other  substances;  but  all  the  forms  of  matter 
appear  to  be  rigid  only  in  a  degree,  and  not  absoluetly  so. 
Glass  is  more  rigid  than  ice,  and  steel  is  more  rigid  than 
glass.  But  even  steel  is  far  from  being  perfectly  rigid.  Sir 
William  Thomson  states*  that  if  the  Earth  were  as  rigid  as 
steel,  the  amount  of  is  yielding  to  tidal  action  would  be  one- 
third  of  the  tidal  effect  upon  a  yielding  globe.  In  other  words 
if  the  Earth  were  a  globe  of  solid  steel,  the  effect  of  the 
Moon's  attraction  upon  it  would  be  to  cause  a  tide  about 
nineteen  inches  in  height.  These  views  are  almost  generally 
concurred  in  by  other  authorities.  Prof.  J.  W.  Juddf  joins 
in  the  belief  of  Scrope  and  Darwin,  that  the  solid  rock  mass- 
es of  the  globe  under  certain  conditions  actually  flowed  like 
viscous  lavas;  and  mentions  that  this  belief  is  fully  corrob- 
orated by  the  experiments  of  MM.  Tresca  and  Daubree.  And 
if  further  evidence  be  required,  we  have  it  in  the  actual  equa- 
torial expansion  of  the  Earth  itself,  in  precisely  the  same 
manner  as  the  planetary  ring  has  been  supposed  to  expand 
outwards  from  the  solar  spheroid.  The  Earth's  equatorial 
regions  have  already  expanded  outwards  from  the  center  to 
a  distance  of  thirteen  miles  on  every  side;  and  the  cause 
which  everybody  assigns  for  this  extension,  is  nothing  else 
than  the  Earth's  rotation,  even  though  it  is  supposed  at  the 
same  time,  that  the  centrifugal  force  generated  by  his  rota- 
tion, is  directly  opposed  by  the  vastly  more  powerful  terres- 
trial attraction.  Therefore,  if  the  Earth's  rotation,  subject 
to  such  powerful  opposition  is  supposed  to  have  projected  the 
equatorial  regions  away  from  the  center  to  a  distance  of  thir- 
teen miles,  it  will  hardly  be  denied  that  the  rotation  of  the 
solar  spheroid,  theoretically  subject  to  much  less  opposition, 

*Phil.  Trans.   1863,  p.  574 

fAddress    to    the    Geological    Society,    London,    Feb.    18,    1887. 


132  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [78 

is  quite  capable  of  projecting  the  solar  ring  outwards  from,  its 
parent  into  complete  isolation  and  eventual  disruption. 

(d).  Of  the  Connective  Bond.— With  regard  to  the  assump- 
tion of  molecular  connexions,  and  especially  that  the  mole- 
cular connexions  may  be  elongated  by  addition  of  atoms  or 
molecules  into  the  planetary  connexions,  it  seems,  so  tar,  to 
involve  nothing  unreasonable.  It  is  everywhere  admitted, 
that  some  connection  exists  between  every  portion  of  matter 
by  means  of  which  actions  and  interactions  are  supposed  to 
take  place.  Usually  such  connection  is  designated  a  force; 
but  as  already  stated,  the  very  propounders  of  that  force 
liave  been  driven  to  the  belief  that  the  true  explanation  of 
it  will  be  found  to  involve  some  such  material  mechanism 
as  is  here  assumed. 

The  inchoate  planet  is  held  by  its  molecular  connexions 
upon  the  bosom  of  the  parent  sphere.  When  the  increasing 
rigidity  of  the  former  and  the  continual  development  and  con- 
traction of  the  latter,  necessitates  a  separation  of  the  bodies, 
is  it  not  reasonable  that  these  molecular  connexions,  being 
thus  subjected  to  a  gradual  strain,  would  be  elongated  con- 
formably to  it?  and,  as  the  tension  becomes  great,  that  it 
would  draw  either  upon  the  connexions  of  the  surface  mole- 
cules of  the  sphere,  or  upon  these  molecules  themselves,  or 
upon  both,  to  relieve  the  strain  by  addition  to  the  connexion? 
Indeed  nothing  seems  more  reasonable.  As  already  stated 
the  connexions  of  developed  molecules  would  be  stronger 
than  those  of  atoms  or  undeveloped  molecules;  the  connex- 
ions subtending  between  the  developed  crust  and  the  con- 
tracting spheroid  would  be  stronger  than  the  interconnexions 
of  the  comparatively  undeveloped  molecules  of  the  spheroid's 
surface;  and  these  last  would  in  turn  be  stronger  than  the 
subjacent  atomic  connexions.  The  tension  falling  slowly  upon 
the  surface  molecules  would  not  cause  their  connexions  to 
sunder  because  there  are  weaker  connexions  beneath  them. 
Yet  they  would  absorb  a  portion  of  the  strain,  the  remainder 
falling  upon  adjacent  molecules  still  less  developed,  or  per- 
haps, down  even  upon  the  primary  components.  Thus  would 


79]  CORROBORATIVE  EVIDENCES  133 

the  tension  be  distributed,  and  evidently  the  more  it  is  dis- 
tribued  the  less  likely  is  any  disjunction  to  take  place.  The 
tension  falling  upon  the  surface  molecules  and  their  connex- 
ions would  slowly  absorb  some  of  them  into  the  strained  con- 
nexion, where  they  would  themselves  be  strained  into  a  new 
form.  These  would  be  followed  by  others  and  still  others, 
and  thus  would  a  main  connexion  be  formed  between  the 
planet-ring  and  the  spheroid.  As  the  ring  becomes  farther 
and  farther  removed  from  the  latter,  owing  to  the  causes  al- 
ready assigned,  it  seems  probable  also  that  connexions  would 
be  formed  between  adjacent  portions  of  the  ring  itself,  which, 
would  also  suffer  stress  by  the  continual  ring-expansion.  In 
the  final  disruption  of  the  ring  these  would  accelerate  the 
approach  of  the  disjoined  parts  to  one  point.  At  the  same  time 
the  central  connexion  would  follow  the  falling  parts,  and  when 
these  parts  finally  join  in  forming  the  spherical  planet,  the 
corresponding  portions  of  the  connexion  would  naturally  coal- 
esce into  cylindrical  conformity.  In  all  this  there  appears 
nothing  unreasonable  or  improbable;  indeed,  from  approxi- 
mate terrestial  analogies,  it  appears  to  be  the  only  thing  that 
could  naturally  happen. 

79.  Comparison  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Ideas. — If  these 
views  are  contrasted  with  the  current  views,  they  will  be 
seen  in  a  still  more  favorable  light.  For,  according  to  the 
latter,  an  increase  of  absolute  tangential  velocity  of  the  axial 
rotation  of  the  spheroid  is  necessary  to  the  projection  of  the 
ring;  yet  no  such  increase  of  velocity  before  or  during  the 
ring-period  is  rationally  assignable  (see  Arts.  63,  66).  And 
after  the  ring  is  precipitated  into  the  planet-sphere  it  is  sup- 
posed to  be  held  to  the  original  spheroid  by  means  of  some 
immaterial  thing  admittedly  unaccountable  in  its  nature,  in 
its  origin,  and  in  its  operation.  Even  then  it  became  neces- 
sary to  introduce  some  substance  into  the  interplanetary  re- 
gions, and  so  it  was  imagined  that  these  regions  were  filled 
wih  a  highly  volatile  fluid  called  ether.  But  by  what  means 
this  ether  came  to  occupy  or  abide  in  these  regions  still  re- 


134  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [80 

mains  inexplicable.  This  is  the  present  theory,  and  it  does 
seem  that,  if  we  cast  aside  all  bias,  the  comparison  of  the 
two  theories  is,  so  far,  not  at  all  unfavorable  to  the  new  one. 

80.     Results  of  the  Ring-Disruption. — 

(a).  Loss  of  Acquired  Development. — In  the  precipitation 
of  the  planetary  ring  into  the  spherical  form,  there  are  sev- 
eral things  which  require  careful  consideration.  First  of 
these  is  that,  in  general,  all  the  development  of  the  ring  would 
be  lost  in  its  collapse,  so  that  the  resulting  planet  would  be 
in  tl^e  same  state  of  vapor  as  the  original  spheroid.  We  are 
impelled  to  this  conclusion  by  the  consideration  that,  if  a 
very  little  development  were  preserved  by  each  new-born 
planet  more  than  was  possessed  by  its  parental  sphere  at 
its  birth,  then,  obviously,  in  a  vast  number  of  generations, 
the  structure  of  a  new-born  planet  would  be  highly  developed, 
and  as  the  original  spheroid  of  our  system  may  itself  have 
been  the  descendant  of  many  preceding  generations,  and  as 
that  spheroid  is  supposed  in  the  premises  to  have  been  in  a 
state  of  extremely  rare  and  nearly  homogeneous  vapor,  it 
appears  that  no  other  conclusion  is  admissible.  Moreover,  the 
conclusion  is  far  from  improbable.  The  vast  mass  of  solid 
matter  in  the  ring,  and  the  vast  distances  through  which  the 
greater  portions  of  the  mass  would  fall,  must  engender  an 
amount  of  heat  quite  sufficient,  in  accordance  with  current 
estimates,  to  reduce  the  colliding  masses  to  their  primordial 
state. 

(b).  Axial  Rotation  of  the  Planet. — A  second  result  to  be 
considered,  which  arises  from  the  precipitation  of  the  ring, 
is  the  axial  rotation  of  the  resulting  planet.  In  the  premises 
has  been  accorded  to  the  original  spheroid  of  our  system  some 
axial  rotation,  and  it  is  obvious  that  this  rotation  would  be 
imparted  to  the  ring  at  the  time  of  its  gradual  separation 
from  the  spheroid,  and,  after  its  disruption,  changed  into  the 
planet's  orbital  motion. 

Now,  in  the  ring-collapse,  one  portion  of  the  ring  would 
move  with  this  original  motion,  and  the  other  portion  would 


80]  CORROBORATIVE  EVIDENCES  135 

move  against  it,  towards  the  point  of  aggregation.  The  por- 
tion moving  with  the  original  rotation  would,  therefore,  have 
a  greater  absolute  velocity  around  the  spheroid  than  the  oth- 
ers. This  greater  velocity,  owing  to  the  increased  centri- 
fugal tendency  which  it  generates,  would  cause  this  portion  to 
move  farther  outwards  from  the  spheroid  than  the  others,  so 
that  while  this  part  would  approach  the  central  point  of  ag- 
gregation far  away  from  that  point,  the  diametrically 
opposite  portions,  owing  to  their  diminished  absolute  velocity, 
and  consequently  diminished  centrifugal  tendency,  would  ap- 
proach it  from  the  opposite  direction  at  a  comparatively 
smaller  distance;  the  obvious  result  being  an  axial  rotation 
of  the  planet  in  the  same  general  direction  as  the  original 
spheroid. 

(c).  Recession  of  the  Planet. — It  seems  probable  that  the 
falling  velocity  of  both  parts  of  the  ring,  especially  when  near 
the  point  of  aggregation,  would  be  much  greater  than  the 
velocity  of  the  original  rotation;  in  which  case  the  planet 
would  be  bodily  carried  outwards  to  a  considerably  greater 
distance  from  the  center  of  the  spheroid  than  that  of  the 
ring  just  prior  to  its  disruption.  The  connexion  of  the  plan- 
et, being  highly  elastic  and  capable  of  adding  to  its  length, 
as  already  indicated,  would  permit  such  removal,  but  would 
also  slowly  hinder  it  and  finally  overcome  it.  This  subject 
will  be  further  considered  in  the  next  section  of  this  article. 

(d).  Cause  of  t)he  Different  Absolute  Velocities  of  the 
Planet's  Orbital  Motion  and  of  the  Rotation  of  the  Spheroid. 
— Why  is  it  that  the  absolute  velocity  of  Neptune  in  its  orbit 
is  about  three  miles  per  second,  while  the  absolute  rotational 
velocity  of  the  Sun's  equator,  even  now,  after  the  repeated 
accelerations  which,  as  we  shall  shortly  see,  would  take  place 
in  the  several  ring  precipitations  which  have  taken  place 
since  Neptune's  time,  is  only  little  more  than  one  mile  per 
second?  and  this  when  it  is  taught  by  the  new  theory,  as  by 
the  old,  that  it  is  the  rotational  velocity  of  the  Sun  from  which 
Neptune's  orbital  velocity  has  been  derived. 

In  answering  this  question,  the  first  thing  to  be  noticed 


136  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [80 

is  that  the  planet-ring,  just  at  the  point  of  separation  from  the 
Sun,  would  probably  have  the  same  angular  rate  of  rotation 
as  the  other  portions  of  the  Sun,  owing  to  the  friction  of  the 
crust  with  the  internal  solar  substance;  and,  being  a  broad, 
flat  body,  this  would  involve  a  much  greater  absolute  ve- 
locity of  the  ring  than  of  the  equatorial  surface,  which  it 
leaves  behind.  A  second  thing  to  be  noticed  is  that  the  con- 
nexion of  the  ring  with  the  Sun,  being  grosser  in  the  earlier 
stage,  would  tend  to  maintain  the  same  angular  rate  of  the 
ring  and  the  Sun  for  a  considerable  time  after  the  separation. 
What  absolute  velocity  the  ring  would  gain  by  this  means 
would  obviously  be  lost  by  the  Sun;  and  thus  would  the  ab- 
solute velocity  of  the  ring,  compared  with  that  of  the  Sun,  be 
doubly  increased,  the  increased  velocity  of  the  ring  being,  of 
course,  transmitted  to  the  subsequent  planet.  Prof.  Young 
has  much  the  same  idea:* 

"A  ring  would  revolve  for  a  while  as  a  whole,  but  in  time 
it  would  break  and  the  material  would  collect  into  a  single 
globe.  Laplace  supposed  that  the  ring  would  revolve  as  if 
it  were  solid,  the  outer  edge,  therefore,  moving  more  swiftly 
than  the  inner.  If  this  were  so,  the  mass  formed  from  the 
collection  of  the  matter  of  the  ruptured  ring  would  neces- 
sarily rotate  in  the  same  direction  as  the  ring  revolved." 

In  this  greater  absolute  velocity  of  the  ring  we  have  a 
further  cause  of  the  recession  of  the  planet;  for  the  centri- 
fugal tendency  which  the  ring  possessed  just  prior  to  its  dis- 
ruption would  be  greater  than  the  elasticity  of  the  connective 
bond  could  withstand  after  the  spherical  aggregation  of  the 
ring.  Before  the  breaking  up  of  the  ring,  the  cohesive 
strength  of  the  ring-substance  would  withstand  a  consider- 
able portion  of  the  centrifugal  strain.  After  this  cohesive 
strength  was  destroyed,  the  entire  strain  would  fall  upon  the 
newly-formed  planetary  bond,  which  consequently  would  very 
probably  yield,  permitting  the  planet  to  move  outwards  until 
the  centrifugal  strain  and  the  elasticity  of  the  connexion  were 
balanced. 

*Gen.  Astron.,  Art.  969 


80]  CORROBORATIVE  EVIDENCES  137 

(e).  Increased  Axial  Rotation  of  the  Sun. — Another  thing 
to  be  noticed  in  the  ring-disruption,  is  an  increased  axial  ro- 
tation of  the  Sun.  For,  as  already  stated,  one  part  of  the 
ring  has  a  much  greater  absolute  velocity  with  respect  to 
the  Sun's  center  than  the  other.  Owing  to  this  greater  ve- 
locity, its  connexion  would  be  in  greater  tension,  and  this 
tension  would  be  transmitted  to  the  surface  molecules  of  the 
Sun;  pulling  them  in  the  direction  in  which  that  portion  of 
the  ring  was  moving.  Since  the  opposite  portion  of  the 
ring  has  a  smaller  absolute  velocity,  the  strain  of  its 
connexion  upon  the  Sun's  surface  would  be  correspondingly 
•weak;  and  so  would  not  balance  the  greater  strain  upon  the 
other  side.  And  the  obvious  consequence  would  be  an  in- 
crease of  the  Sun's  absolute  rotatory  velocity. 

Here,  then,  is  a  very  simple  explanation  of  a  phenomenon 
hitherto  inexplicable.  We  now  find  a  cause  for  the  greater 
absolute  velocity  of  the  inner  planets  as  compared  with  the 
outer,  which  the  theory  of  gravitation  is  incapable  of  furnish- 
ing. For  the  force  of  gravity  is  supposed  to  act  with  pre- 
cisely equal  strength  whether  it  acts  upon  another  body  or 
not.  One  body  is  supposed  to  attract  another  directly  as  its 
mass,  and  inversely  as  the  square  of  the  distance  between 
them.  It  is  true  that,  in  conformity  with  this  tneory,  the  re- 
ceding portion  of  the  ring  would  attract  the  Sun;  but  its 
recession,  instead  of  increasing  the  strain  upon  the  Sun's  sur- 
face, would  diminish  it.  While,  upon  the  other  side  of  the 
Sun,  the  slow-moving  portion  would  be  the  nearer,  and  so  its 
attraction  or  strain  upon  that  side  would  be  the  greater.  Thus 
in  accordance  with  the  theory  of  gravitation,  if  any  variation 
of  the  Sun's  rotation  would  take  place,  it  would  be  in  the 
direction  of  retarding,  rather  than  in  accelerating  that  rota- 
tion. 

(f).  Origin  of  Comets  and  Meteorites). — Yet  another  thing 
to  be  noticed  in  the  disruption  of  the  ring,  is  the  origin  of 
comets,  planetoids,  and  meteorites.  In  the  light  of  the  new 
theory,  the  comets  and  meteorites  are  nothing  else  than  frag- 
ments of  the  planet-ring,  which  by  some  irregularity  in  the 


138  THE  CONNECTIVE  TH.EORY  [82 

tremendoug  crash,  are  hurled  outwards  with  such  violence 
as  to  break  the  connexions,  both  with  the  Sun  and  the  new- 
born planet;  whence  they  wander  through  space  until  their 
career  has  been  arrested  by  colksion  with  some  other  sun 
or  planet.  This,  together  with  the  various  peculiarities  of 
comets,  will  be  more  fully  discussed  farther  on. 

81.  Genesis  of  a  Second  Planet. — The  surface  of  the  Sun 
would  still  continue  to  contract  in  volume  and  to  develop  in 
structure  as  before,  with  the  exception  of  the  single  circum- 
stance of  being  subject  to  the  influence  of  the  planet's  con- 
nexion. The  effect  of  this  circumstance,  however,  would 
probably  be  nothing  more  in  this  respect  than  slightly  to 
hasten  the  equatorial  movement  of  the  developed  molecules. 
The  same  progressive  steps  as  before  would  ensue,  the  same 
structural  development,  the  same  ring-formation  with  its 
evolving  connexion,  the  same  polar  fractures  and  equatorial 
expansion  of  the  ring,  the  same  eventual  disruption  generat- 
ing the  new  axial  rotation  and  again  increasing  that  of  the 
Sun.  And  thus,  as  a  result  of  almost  an  eternity  of  evolution, 
comes  the  dissolution;  and  out  of  the  dissolution  arises  a  sec- 
ond new-born  planet,  with  perhaps  a  comet  or  two  and  a  shoal 
of  meteorites.  As  the  second  planet-ring  became  separated 
from  the  Sun,  different  parts  of  It  would  be  temporarily  in 
the  connexion  of  the  first  planet,  serving  for  the  time,  as  a 
part  of  that  connexion ;  and  the  two  connexions  mingling  to- 
gether between  the  ring  and  the  Sun.  In  the  collapse  of  the 
ring,  its  own  connexion  would  follow  it  to  the  point  of  aggre- 
gation; the  connexion  of  the  first  planet  joining  behind  the 
falling  portions  of  the  ring,  and  so  remaining  intact. 

82.  Genesis  of  a  Secondary  Connexion. — But  the  connexion 
of  the  first  planet  would  not  all  stay  behind  the  precipitating 
ring.  A  portion  of  it,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose,  would  ad- 
here to  the  ring-substance  and  would  form  a  connexion  be- 
tween the  two  planets.  This  secondary  connexion  quite 
probably  would  differ  materially  from  the  primary  connexion 
with  the  Sun  being  more  refined  and  rarer,  agreeable  to  the 
functions  it — or  rather  the  remainder  of  the  connexion — has 


84]  CORROBORATIVE  EVIDENCES  139 

to  perform.  In  support  of  this  difference  in  the  nature  of 
the  two  connexions,  it  may  be  urged  in  the  first  place  that 
the  Sun,  being  by  far  the  greater  mass,  would  naturally  claim 
the  greater  share  of  the  first  planet's  connexion;  whence  the 
share  falling  to  the  second  planet  would  be  comparatively 
attenuated.  And  in  the  second  place,  those  portions  of  the 
connexion  which  perform  the  office  of  holding  the  first  planet 
in  its  orbit,  and  transmitting  to  it  heat  and  light,  may  reason- 
ably be  supposed  to  be  sufficiently  fixed  in  that  office  to 
resist  removal;  so  that  the  less  necessary  (that  is,  the  less 
gross,  or  more  volatile),  portion  only  of  the  first  connexion 
would  fall  to  the  second  planet. 

83.  Mutual    Planetary   Accelerations  and    Retardations. — 
Owing  partly  to  the  increase  of  the  Sun's  axial  rotation  in  the 
breaking  up  of  the  first  ring,  the  orbital  periods  of  the  two 
planets  would  differ;  that  of  the  inner  being  the  shorter.    The 
inner  planet  would  therefore  move  away  from  the  first  planet 
between  conjunction  and  opposition,*  and  would  approach  it 
between  opposition  and  conjunction.     The  interplanetary  con- 
nexion would  therefore  be  subjected  to  a  long-continued  ten- 
sion; the  substance  for  its  elongation  being  supplied  from  the 
atmospheres  of  the  two  planets.     Evidently  when  the  con- 
nexion between  the  two  planets  is  thus  strained,  the  outer 
planet  would  be  accelerated  and  the  inner  planet  retarded. 
But  after  opposition,  the  reverse  would  occur;  for  whatever 
resistance  was  offered  by  the  amospheric  molecules  in  elong- 
ating the  connexion  may  be  supposed  to  be  compensated  by 
their  mutual  affinity  when  the  tension  is  removed.     So  that 
the  acceleration  and  retardation  of  each  planet  would  be  ap- 
proximately equal. 

84.  Systemic  Complexity. — Each  planet,  being  at  its  birth 
a  globe  of  vapor  similar  in  all  respects  except  magnitude  to 
the  original  solar  spheroid,  would  contract  its  volume  by  sur- 
face   development    and    pass    through    the    same    generative 
stages  as  the  parent;  the  eventual  result  of  which  would  be 

*Conjunction  of  two  planets  here  means  that  both  are  on  the  same 
side  of  the  Sun;  and  opposition,  that  they  are  on  opposite  sides  of  the 
Sun. 


140  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [84 

the  birth  of  satellites  in  the  same  manner  as  the  planets.  The 
satellites  would  be  connected  primarily  with  the  parent  plan- 
ets and  secondarily  with  the  Sun  and  with  sister  satellites; 
and  the  action  of  the  secondary  connexions  upon  the  satellites 
would  be  similar  to,  though  less  in  magnitude  than,  their  ac- 
tion in  the  case  of  the  planets. 

It  seems  unnecessary  in  this  place  to  follow  the  details 
of  the  genesis  of  each  of  the  other  planets  and  satellites. 
The  generating  process  of  each  planet  is  but  a  repetition  of  the 
steps  involved  in  the  generation  of  its  predecessors,  with  the 
exception  of  an  increasing  complexity  of  interplanetary  con- 
nexions, as  every  successive  planet  would  be  connected  with 
every  preceding  one.  This  complexity  becomes  mazelike,  even 
if  there  were  no  greater  number  of  connected  bodies  than 
is  comprised  in  the  Solar  System  at  its  present  stage.  But 
when  we  consider  that  our  Sun  is  but  a  planet  of  a  still  great- 
er system,  having  its  own  proper  connexions  with  its  sun  and 
sister  planets — nay,  when  we  consider,  as  according  to  the 
new  theory  we  must,  that  our  Sun  is  but  a  satellite — a  sat- 
ellite of  the  tenth  or  twelfth  order  of  descent  from  a  grand 
but  vastly  remote  parent;  when  we  consider  the  vast  number 
of  other  suns,  planets  and  satellites  necessarily  involved  be- 
tween us  and  that  parent,  with  each  of  which  our  own  little 
world  is  quite  probably  connected — truly  the  highly  intricate 
plexus  of  connexions  thus  approximately  indicated  is  apparent- 
ly not  very  far  removed  from  the  current  idea  of  universal 
ether  after  all.  But  there  is  this  difference:  There  is  a 
system  in  the  former,  while  the  latter  is  a  mere  chaotic  homo- 
geneity; a  natural  and  rational  derivation  for  the  one,  while 
the  other  has  no  other  basis  than  mere  assumption. 

It  would  be  equally  impossible  and  unnecessary  to  trace  out 
all  the  connexions  involved  in  our  system  and  their  various 
effects  upon  each  other  and  upon  the  bodies  they  connect.  It 
seems  that  if  the  moving  equilibrium  of  any  three  bodies  can 
be  demonstrated  to  be  stable  according  to  this  connective  the- 
ory, that  of  a  greater  number  need  not,  perhaps,  be  considered. 
For  the  addition  of  a  fourth,  or  a  fifth,  or  any  number  of  other 


84]  CORROBORATIVE  EVIDENCES  141 

bodies  in  a  regular  manner,  while  increasing  the  complexity, 
apparently  involves  no  new  or  greater  difficulty  than  is  found 
in  the  simple  system  of  three  bodies.  The  grand  Complexity 
appears  to  be  but  a  repetition  and  combination  of  simple  uni- 
ties compounded  and  recompounded  in  time,  in  space  and  In 
motion. 

When  a  planet,  or  a  satellite,  would  impinge  upon  some 
other  connexion  than  its  own,  the  latter  would  part  its  molec- 
ular attachments  and  fix  them  upon  the  entering  body.  Dur- 
ing the  passage,  the  latter  would  practically  form  a  part  of 
the  connexion;  and  when  the  body  would  pass  through  it,  the 
molecules  of  the  connexion,  following  its  contour  and  succes- 
sively attaching  themselves  to  the  different  portions,  would  fi- 
nally close  up  behind  it  and  unite  together  as  before.  The  con- 
nexion of  the  one  body  would  pass  through  that  of  the  other 
much  upon  the  same  principle  except  that  the  lateral  molec- 
ular connexions  of  both  planetary  bonds,  instead  of  the  longi- 
tudinal molecular  connexions  of  one  only,  would  part,  those 
of  each  to  admit  the  longitudinal  connexions  of  the  other; 
these  lateral  connexions  joining  together  after  the  passage  in 
the  same  manner  as  the  longitudinal  connexions  during  the 
passage  through  them  of  a  heavenly  body. 


CHAPTER  III 

* 

EVOLUTION  OF  THE  SIDEREAL  SYSTEM 


The  question  is  so  vast  that  the  researches  of  our  great- 
est astronomers  have  done  little  more  than  lead  us  to  the 
top  of  Pisgar  and  show  us  from  afar  the  promised  land;  but 
every  newly  ascertained  fact,  or  even  confirmation  of  old 
ones,  is  a  valuable  contribution  towards  the  general  stock 
of  knowledge  which  is  Demg  gradually  accumulated;  out  of 
which,  perhaps,  the  genius  of  some  future  Newton  may  evolve 
some  general  law. — HOWARD  PAYN. 

Unfortunately,  whatever  progress  we  may  make  in  pho- 
tography or  in  optics,  whatever  penetrating  and  sensitive 
power  we  may  hope  to  give  to  our  instruments,  it  is  evident 
that  we  shall  never  succeed  in  seeing  the  most  distant  stars, 
and  that,  at  whatever  limit  we  may  arrive,  there  will  always 
be  beyond  it  an  infinity  of  others  lost  in  the  profundity  of 
the  heavens  which  will  always  escape  our  knowledge;  but 
it  is  by  photography  and  the  scientific  study  of  negatives  that 
we  shall  be  able  to  go  further  than  by  any  other  means. 

— ADMIRAL  MOUCHEZ. 

I  not  believe  that  the  great  Architect 

With  all  these  fires  the  heavenly  arches  decked 

Only  for  show,  and  with  these  glistening  shields 

To  amaze  poor  shepherds  watching  in  the  fields; 

I  not  believe  that  the  least  flower  which  flanks 

Our  garden  borders,  or  our  common  banks, 

And  the  least  stone  that  in  her  warming  lap 

Our  mother  earth  did  covetously  wrap, 

Haih  some  peculiar  virtue  of  its  own, 

And  that  the  glorious  stars  of  heaven  have  none. 

—JOSHUA  SYLVESTER   (1593-1(518). 

85.  The  Original  Sidereal  Spheroid. — If  the  solar  spheroid 
with  which  we  started,  instead  of  being  the  parent  of  the 
Solar  System,  were  considered  as  the  parent  of  the  Sidereal 
System,  still  the  same  premises  would  apply,  and  the  same 
results  of  the  process  of  subdivision  or  segregation,  would  evi- 
dently be  arrived  at.  Planet  after  planet  would  be  continually 
given  out  from  the  spheroid  in  the  equatorial  plane  of  its  ro- 
tation, its  still  remaining  nucleus  constituting  the  center 


86]  EVOLUTION   OF    THE    SIDEREAL    SYSTEM  143 

around  which  all  these  bodies  revolve.  Each  of  these  grander 
planets  would  in  their  turn  give  forth  sub-planets  and  consti- 
tute a  sub-system  of  which  the  still  remaining  nucleus  of  the 
planet  would  be  the  immediate  governing  center.  Each  sub- 
planet  in  turn  would  subdivide  in  a  similar  manner,  the  sub- 
divisions of  which  would  also  become  the  centers  of  a  still 
inferior  order.  And  so  on  down  to  the  present  stage.  In  cor- 
roboration  of  this,  we  observe  that  the  bodies  of  the  Sidereal 
System  are  distributed  principally  in  one  plane,  that  of  the 
Milky  Way,  which  would  thus  be  determined  as  the  equatorial 
plane  of  the  Sidereal  System;  this,  it  may  be  added,  being  also 
in  accordance  with  the  views  of  nearly  all  eminent  philoso- 
phers and  astronomers.  And  in  still  further  corroboration,  it 
is  observed  that  the  greatest  degree  of  subdivision,  as  man- 
ifested in  the  nebulae,  has  taken  place  in  the  peripheral  parts 
of  the  Sidereal  System,  in  the  older  sub-systems,  just  where 
we  should  reasonably  look  for  it. 

86.  The  Sidereal  System  and  What  It  Includes.— It  has 
been  thought  probable  by  many  astronomers  that  the  nebulae 
are  other  galaxies,  or  sidereal  systems,  at  distances  propor- 
tionately as  great  from  ours  as  the  distances  of  the  fixed  stars 
are  greater  than  the  planetary  distances.  And  they  were  not 
unnaturally  led  to  this  view;  for,  gazing  at  these  nebulae,  they 
looked  through  and  beyond  the  countless  stars  of  the  Milky 
Way,  and  they  saw  nothing  beyond  them  but  the  perfect  black- 
ness of  the  heavens.  But  the  nebulae,  though  probably  be- 
yond the  visible  stars  of  our  galaxy,  can  hardly  be  at  such 
almost  infinite  distances.  For,  if  the  distance  of  the  neb- 
ulae from  the  Sidereal  System  were  about  a  million  times 
that  of  the  fixed  stars  from  us,  as  the  stated  supposition  im- 
plies, it  would  inevitably  follow  that  the  telescopic  power  re- 
quired to  resolve  these  remote  galaxies  into  stars  must  be  in- 
comparably greater  than  that  required  to  resolve  our  own  gal- 
axy into  stars.  But  this  is  not  the  case,  as  it  is  well  known 
that  the  same  telescopic  power  by  which  many  of  the  stars 
certainly  belonging  to  our  galaxy  are  barely  visible,  will  clear- 
ly resolve  many  of  the  nebulae  into  distinct  and  separate  stars. 


144  THE   CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [87 

And  it  seems  far  more  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  stars 
of  our  own  galaxy  and  the  starlets  of  the  nebulae,  both  of 
which  are  barely  discernible  separately  in  the  most  powerful 
telescopes,  are  both  about  the  same  distance  from  us,  than  to 
suppose  that  the  starlets  of  the  nebulae  are  each  a  million 
times  greater  than  the  stars  of  the  Sidereal  System. 

It  is  not  here  contended  that  there  are  no  other  galaxies 
or  firmaments  beyond  our  own,  but  only  that  if  such  really 
exist,  they  must  be  invisible  to  us,  owing  to  the  remoteness 
of  our  relationship  with  them  and  to  our  immense  distance 
from  them.  From  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge  it  seems 
nothing  less  than  presumption  either  to  assert  the  existence 
of  other  firmaments  than  ours,  or  to  deny  that  our  firmament 
may  even  be  a  constituent  atom  of  an  eye  beholding  but  a 
tittle  of  the  Cosmos. 

87.  Arrangement  of  the  Sidereal  System. — According  to 
the  telescopic  researches  of  Sir  William  Herschel,  our  little 
world  is  situated  nearly  in  the  plane  of  the  Galactic  Circle 
which  passes  through  the  Milky  Way,  but  somewhat  eccen- 
trically, being  apparently  nearer  to  the  southern  than  to  the 
northern  portion  of  that  circle.  In,  or  very  nearly  in,  this 
plane,  which  differs  only  about  40°  from  that  of  the  Solar  Sys- 
tem, the  vast  majority  of  the  heavenly  bodies  lies,  and,  as  we 
recede  from  it,  the  number  of  stars  in  equal  areas  of  the  sky 
rapidly  diminishes  up  to  the  Galactic  Poles.  Had  the  evolu- 
tion of  every  successive  body  of  the  Sidereal  System  been  reg- 
ular, all  the  stars  and  planets,  according  to  the  new  theory, 
would  lie  in  this  plane.  But  as  the  evolution  of  the  Solar 
System  has  not  all  been  regular,  the  motions  of  some  bodies 
being  at  very  great  inclinations  to  the  plane  of  the  Sun's  equa- 
tor, it  might  reasonably  be  expected  that  the  same  irregular- 
ities would  occur  in  the  Sidereal  System  in  the  same  propor- 
tion. The  stars  which  we  observe  in  high  galactic  latitudes 
furnish,  therefore,  no  greater  objection  to  the  common  origin 
of  all  the  bodies  of  our  firmament  than  the  great  inclinations 
of  the  orbit  planes  of  the  satellites  of  Neptune  and  Uranus 


88]  EVOLUTION   OF   THE    SIDEREAL    SYSTEM  145 

furnish  to  the  common  origin  of  all  the  bodies  of  the  Solar 
System. 

It  may  be  incidentally  remarked  that,  although  apparently 
numberless,  the  visible  bodies  of  our  firmament  are  in  all  prob- 
ability few  compared  with  the  number  of  those,  equally  large, 
which  are  totally  invisible  to  us.  Beyond  the  puny  limits  of 
our  own  Solar  System,  we  observe,  even  with  the  most  power- 
ful telescopes,  probably  none  but  incandescent  bodies  shin- 
ing by  their  own  proper  light.  Around  many  of  them  and 
receiving  their  light  and  heat,  are  revolving  other  bodies  which 
of  themselves  give  forth  no  light,  just  as  we  find  the  dark 
planets  circling  our  own  Sun.  Occasionally,  indeed,  we  ob- 
serve bright  planets  revolving  round  their  primaries,  as  in  the 
case  of  periodic,  binary  and  multiple  stars;  but  those  planets 
themselves  are  theoretically  of  recent  origin  and  in  an  incan- 
descent state.  As  not  more  than  two  or  three  such  may  rea- 
sonably be  supposed  to  exist  among  the  many  dark  bodies  of 
the  Solar  System,  we  may  safely  presume  that  in  snniiar  sys- 
tems a  similar  state  of  things  prevails.  And  even  in  the  sys- 
tems in  which  the  incandescent  planets  are  observed,  it  is 
quite  probable  that  they  are  not  always  unaccompanied  by 
more  developed  sister  planets  (see  Art.  139). 

88.  Probable  Number  of  the  Heavenly  Bodies  and  of  Their 
Successive  Generations. — To  gain  some  idea  of  the  number 
of  successive  generations  of  heavenly  bodies  which  would  have 
taken  place  from  the  original  spheroid  of  the  Sidereal  System 
down  to  the  present  time,  let  us  assume  that  heavenly  bodies 
of  all  magnitudes  are  equally  prolific;  i.  e.,  that  suns,  planets, 
satellites,  etc.,  have  on  the  average  (to  use  a  familiar  phrase) 
the  same  period  of  gestation.  The  actual  number  of  stars 
visible  to  the  naked  eye,  including  all  down  to  the  7th  magni- 
tude, is  about  6,000;  and  the  number  telescopically  visible 
down  to  the  13th  magnitude  is  about  43,000,000.  Let  us  put 
the  whole  number  of  heavenly  bodies,  from  those  of  the  first 
magnitude  down  to  those  which  are  barely  visible  in  the  most 
powerful  telescopes,  both  inclusive,  at  one  billion;  and  let  us 
further  suppose  that  the  number  of  dark  bodies  in  the  Sider- 


146 


THE  CONNECTIVE  THEORY 


[88 


eal  System  which  are  wholly  invisible  to  us,  is  about  ten  times 
as  great  as  the  number  we  observe;  and,  finally,  to  the  sum 
thus  obtained  let  us  add,  for  accidental  contingencies,  enough 
to  make  one  hundred  billions,  and  call  this  the  number  of 
bodies  regularly  derived  (excluding  meteorites  and  most  com- 
ets, which  are  not  supposed  to  generate  new  bodies),  of  which 
the  Sidereal  System  now  consists.  From  these  various  facts 
and  assumptions  it  follows  that  the  number  of  generations 
from  the  primordial  spheroid  of  the  Sidereal  System  down  to 
the  present  time,  is  about  thirty-three;  a  generation  in  this 
case  being  the  time  elapsing  between  the  birth  of  a  heavenly 
body  and  the  birth  of  the  next  heavenly  body  from  the  same 
parent.  In  the  following  table,  let  S  represent  the  primordial 
spheroid  of  the  Sidereal  System,  and  let  the  horizontal  col- 
umns represent  the  orders  of  descent  of  the  heavenly  bodies, 
and  the  diagonal  columns  the  orders  of  their  generations  in 
time;  then  the  figures  in  these  columns  will  denote  the  num- 
ber of  oodies  of  each  order  of  descent,  in  each  order  of  time 
down  to  the  12th. 

TABLE    OF    SIDEREAL    GENERATIONS 


In  the  first  order  of  time,  the  spheroid  would  give  birth  to 
one  body  of  the  first  order  of  descent.  In  the  second  order  of 
time,  the  latter  would  give  birth  to  one  body  of  the  second 


88]  EVOLUTION   OF   THE    SIDEREAL    SYSTEM  147 

order  of  descent,  and  the  spheroid  would  give  birth  to  another 
body  of  the  first  order  of  descent.  In  the  third  order  of  time, 
there  would  be  one  of  the  first  order  of  descent  from  the  spher- 
oid, two  bodies  of  the  second  order  of  descent  from  the  two 
previously  existing  bodies  of  the  first  order  of  descent,  and 
one  body  of  the  third  order  of  descent  from  the  previously  ex- 
isting body  of  the  second  order  of  descent.  And  so  on;  the 
numbers  of  the  bodies  of  the  various  orders  of  descent,  in  any 
order  of  time,  forming  the  co-efficients  of  the  terms  of  a  sim- 
ple algebraic  binomial  raised  to  a  power  denoted  by  the  num- 
ber less  one  of  that  order.  Thus  the  numbers  of  the  bodies 
of  the  various  orders  of  descent,  from  the  first  to  the  seventh 
inclusive,  in  the  seventh  order  of  time,  are  1,  6,  15,  20,  15,  6,  1, 
respectively;  these  numbers  being  also  the  co-efficients  of  the 
respective  terms  of  (a+b)e  fully  expanded.  It  is  also  to  be 
observed  that  the  number  of  all  bodies  of  all  orders  of  de- 
scent in  any  order  of  time,  is  just  twice  the  number  in  the 
preceding  order  of  time;  so  that  the  sums  of  all  the  bodies 
in  the  successive  orders  of  time,  form  the  terms  of  a  geomet- 
rical progression  of  which  the  ratio  is  2.  And  finding  the  sum 
of  33  terms  of  such  a  series,  the  first  term  being  one,  we  have 
a  number  larger  by  half  than  the  number  of  bodies  of  which 
we  assumed  the  Sidereal  System  to  consist. 

It  would  follow  from  this  consideration,  then,  that  the 
Sidereal  System  is  composed  of  some  thirty-two  or  thirty- 
three  consecutive  principal  systems;  and  also  that  the  Solar 
System,  if  its  original  spheroid  were  regularly  derived  from 
the  primordial  spheroid  of  the  Sidereal  System,  (as  seems 
probable  in  comparison  with  the  supposition  of  its  being  a 
comet)  and  supposing  Neptune  to  be  its  first  planet,  and  the 
Asteroids  temporally  equivalent  to  another  planet — would 
probably  be  a  member  of  the  tenth  of  these  consecutive  sys- 
tems from  the  sidereal  center;  which  appears  to  be  strongly 
corroborated  by  actual  observation. 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE    UNIVERSE 


The  density  of  stars  in  the  Sidereal  System  gradually 
diminishes  until  the  limit  of  stellar  matter  would  be  reached 
at  about  30,000  light-years. — Nature,  78,  234-7. 

If  the  universe  is  infinite,  the  number  of  stars  would  be 
theoretically  four  times  greater  for  each  fainter  magnitude, 
but,  as  observed,  it  was  only  three  times  greater.  The  hy- 
pothesis that  light  is  absorbed  by  material  particles  would 
apparently  explain  the  discrepancy. — PROF.  H.  H.  TURNER. 

In  all  the  various  realms  of  sense-perception,  there  will 
always  be  that  which  lies  beyond,  and  which  can  only  be  con- 
jectured, or  at  best  reasonably  inferred,  but  which  can  never 
become  immediately  perceived  by  human  senses.  Surround- 
ing the  expanding  island  of  the  visible  world  will  be  the  bound- 
less sea  of  the  invisible. — GEORGE  TRUMBULL  LADD. 

89.  Other  Sidereal  Systems. — Does  the  Sidereal  System 
comprise  ail  there  is — the  entire  Cosmos — the  Universe? 
There  appears  to  be  no  ocular  evidence  today  that  there  is 
anything  beyond  it.  It  was  once  thought  the  irresolvable 
nebulae  were  other  systems  similar  to  the  Sidereal  System 
but  at  a  vastly  greater  distance.  However  when  new  stars 
of  considerable  magnitude  Avere  seen  suddenly  to  blaze  out  in 
these  nebulae,  it  was  impossible  to  believe  that  these  new 
stars  could  be  of  such  immense  size  as  to  make  them  thus  vis- 
ible at  distances  millions  of  times  greater  than  the  utmost  lim- 
its of  the  Sidereal  System.  Therefore  the  belief  seemed  nec- 
essary that  these  nebulae  were  within  the  confines  of  our  own 
system,  and  that  their  irresolvability  was  owing  to  the  com- 
parative smallness  of  their  constituent  units  rather  than  to 
their  greater  distance.  So  that,  if  there  really  be  anything 
outside  of  the  Sidereal  System,  we  have  no  visual  evidence 
of  it;  nothing  but  the  dense,  mysterious  blackness  of  the 
Beyond. 

But  there  are  other  and  stronger  reasons  for  refusing  to 


90]  THE  UNIVERSE  149 

believe  that  the  universe  is  confined  to  just  all  that  puny  mart 
is  able  to  behold.  Some  of  these  are  noticed  in  the  follow- 
ing article. 

But  whether  the  Sidereal  System  'be  the  entire  Cosmos  or 
not,  the  idea  of  an  original  spheroid  which  has  already  been 
considered  would  apply  just  the  same;  the  sole  difference  be- 
ing that  in  the  primordial  spheroid  of  the  whole  Cosmos,  ax- 
ial rotation  cannot  be  assumed. 

90.  The  Origin  of  Motion. — In  all  of  the  new  theory  that 
precedes,  axial  rotaion  has  been  assumed;  and  from  the  axial 
rotation,  orbital  revolution  in  all  its  phases  naturally  follows. 
It  seems  necessary  to  believe  that  matter  always  existed  in 
some  form  or  other;  but  it  does  not  seem  necessary  to  be- 
lieve either  that  motion  is  matter,  as  some  do  (such  as  Kighi, 
Ostwald,  Einstein,  and  Planck),*  or  that  motion  is  eternal  the 
same  as  matter  is.  It  seems  more  natural  to  suppose  that 
motion  in  some  way  or  other  arose  out  of  matter,  and  such  a 
supposition  seems  not  inconceivable. 

In  the  cosmical  spheroid,  as  in  the  others,  the  ultimate 
components  upon  the  surface  of  the  spheroid  would  be  differ- 
ently circumstanced  from  those  beneath  them;  from  which 
the  same  process  of  surface  consolidation  as  before  is  infer- 
able. But  in  the  absence  of  rotation,  this  process  would 
eventually  culminate,  not  in  an  equatorial  ring,  as  before,  but 
in  a  hollow  spherical  shell.  This  shell  would  be  held  to  the 
central  spheroid  by  a  primary  connexion  just  as  was  the  ring, 
and  the  molecules  of  the  shell  would  have  intermolecular  con- 
nexions just  as  those  of  the  ring  had.  Continual  development 
would  cause  rigidity  of  the  shell  as  of  the  ring,  which  would 
prevent  it  from  following  the  contracting  spheroid  within  it; 
and,  in  its  final  collapse,  the  intermolecular  connexions,  being 
stronger  than  the  primary  connexions  with  the  spheroid, 
would  draw  the  fractured  portions  of  the  shell  together  chief- 
ly in  its  own  plane  until  a  falling  velocity  was  acquired  which 
would  balance  the  elasticity  of  the  central  connexion.  It  is 
not  likely,  however,  that  all  of  such  a  shell  would  coalesce  at 

*Nature,  91,  pp.  3,   27. 


150  THE  CONNECTIVE   THEORY  [90 

one  point.  There  would  no  doubt  be  several  points  of  aggre- 
gation, at  each  of  which  the  aggregating  matter  would  be  cer- 
tain to  acquire  axial  rotation  because  all  the  impacts  of  the 
falling  portions  at  each  point  of  aggregation  cannot  be  sup- 
posed to  have  balanced  one  another;  and  there  would  also  be 
orbital  motions  of  the  several  aggregated  masses  (which  mo- 
tions could  be  obviated  only  by  all  of  the  shell  aggregating 
at  one  point,  in  which  case  there  would  be  no  orbital  motion, 
though  there  could  be  axial  rotation,  just  as  in  the  other  case) 
and  these  orbital  motions  would  necessarily  be  in  various  di- 
rections. 

If  the  number  of  bodies  resulting  from  the  shell  were 
great,  their  orbital  motions  would  be  inclined  to  each  other 
at  many  angles ;  but  if  the  collapse  of  the  shell  resulted  main- 
ly in  two  principal  bodies,  then  the  orbital  revolutions  of 
these  two  would  be  in  one  plane  and  in  opposite  directions; 
and  these  directions  would  determine  the  equator  of  the  re- 
sulting system;  from  which  subsequent  smaller  bodies  would 
extend  in  diminishing  density  towards  the  poles. 

It  is  some  evidence  in  favor  of  the  view  that  the  entire 
Cosmos  is  co-extensive  with  "the  Sidereal  System  that  these 
two  motions  are  actually  within  it  in  the  galactic  circle  and 
that  the  stars  diminish  in  number  towards  the  galactic  poles 
in  the  proportion  of  about  fifty  at  the  former  place  to  one 
at  the  latter.* 

"The  great  mass  of  the  stars  are  distributed  in  a  lens-  or 
bun-shaped  system,  in  which  our  sun  occupies  a  central  posi- 
tion; round  this  and  in  the  same  plane  are  coiled  the  clusters 
which  make  up  the  Milky  Way.  In  the  central  parts  of  this 
the  stars  form  two  great  streams  moving  in  opposite  direc- 
tions: this  is  most  easily  explained  as  being  the  result  of  two 
more  or  less  independent  systems  of  stars  having  become 
intermingled,  'f 

"Seven  years  ago  Prof.  Kapteyn,  at  the  scientific  congress 
of  the  St.  Louis  Exposition,  introduced  his  now~  well-known 
hypothesis  that  the  visible  universe  consists  of  two  great 
intermingling  streams  moving  in  opposite  directions.  The 

*J.   Norman  Lockyer,   Nature,    60,    618. 
'    fA.  E>.   Eddinton,  Nature,   87,   468. 


90]  THE  UNIVERSE  151 

direction  of  one  he  called  the  'vertex,'  which  he  fixed  at  K. 
A.  6h.  4m.,  decl.  +  13°.  Quite  recently  Eddington  of  the 
Greenwich  Observatory,  with  the  same  hypothesis  .  .  . 
found  for  this  vertex  R.  A.  6h.  16m.,  decl.  +  12°."* 

There  are  other  considerations,  however,  which  compel  the 
belief  that  the  Sidereal  System  cannot  be  commensurate  with 
the  Cosmical  System,  and  that  the  present  stage  of  cosmical 
evolution  cannot  be  the  primordial  stage.  It  will  appear  lat- 
er that  the  present  highly  developed  molecular  mechanism 
must  have  been  derived  from  a  previous  stage,  possibly  from 
many  previous  stages,  of  cosmical  evolution.  And  it  seems 
not  improbable  that  the  two  opposite  stellar  streams  could 
result  from  a  system  derived  from,  and  subordinate  to,  the 
Cosmical  System,  and  possessing  an  axial  rotation,  though  at 
a  rate  so  slow  that  the  resulting  ring  would  not  be  greatly 
different  from  the  spherical  shell. 

But  whatever  the  dimensions  of  the  Cosmical  System  as 
compared  with  the  Sidereal  System,  and  however  remote  the 
primordial  stage  of  cosmical  evolution  as  compared  with  the 
present,  motion  could  still  arise  in  the  manner  indicated  from 
the  collapse  of  the  spherical  shell  of  the  motionless  primordial 
cosmical  spheroid. 

*G.  A.  Miller,  Am.  Assoc.  Adv.  Sci.  1911;  Science,  35,  221.  Sea 
also  F.  W.  Dyson,  Nature,  82,  pp.  11,  12,  13. 


CHAPTER  V 
COSMICAL  GRAVITATION 


If  we  found  an  agreement  between  the  results  of  the  ap- 
plication of  our  theory  to  special  problems  and  the  solutions 
of  the  corresponding  problems  as  worked  objectively  in  na- 
ture, we  should  have  reason  to  believe  that  our  hypotheses 
agreed  with  the  facts,  or,  in  other  words,  that  they  were  true, 
and  we  should  then  raise  them  to  the  dignity  of  natural  laws. 
It  is  on  evidence  of  this  kind  that  our  acceptation  of  all 
natural  laws  is  based.  If  our  conclusions  were  inconsistent 
with  natural  phenomena,  our  system  of  dynamics  would  be  an 
abstract,  instead  of  a  natural,  science — if,  indeed,  it  might 
be  called  a  science  at  all — and  would  be  valuable  merely  as 
intellectual  exercise. — WILLIAM  GARNETT. 

This  energy,  in  the  interval  between  its  departure  from 
the  sun  and  its  arrival  at  the  earth,  must  be  in  the  space  be- 
tween them.  Thus  this  space  must  contain  something  which, 
like  ordinary  matter,  can  store  up  energy,  which  can  carry  at 
an  enormous  pace  the  energy  associated  with  light  and  heat, 
and  can,  in  addition,  exert  the  enormous  stresses  necessary 
to  keep  the  earth  circling  round  the  sun  and  the  moon  around 
the  earth.— SIR  J.  J.  THOMSON. 

Nature  is  generally  more  simple  than  our  conceptions 
thereof;  we  begin  with  very  complicated  theories  and  end 
with  the  most  simple. — DU  PREL. 

91.  The  Ball-and-String  Hypothesis. — After  this  rapid  gen- 
eral survey  of  cosmical  and  systemic  evolution,  we  may  now 
proceed  to  the  consideration  of  that  evolution  more  in  detail, 
and  observe  what  corroborative  or  contradictory  evidence  the 
new  theory  meets  with  in  the  various  phenomena  involved. 

Of  the  first  importance  in  this  direction  is  the  phenomena 
of  cosmical  gravitation  and  a  comparison  of  the  actions  of 
the  planetary  connexions  in  producing  these  phenomena  with 
that  of  the  force  of  gravity.  The  theory  of  gravitation  seems 
by  no  means  a  flimsy  one  which  may  be  lightly  considered  and 
passed  over.  The  attraction  by  means  of  which  bodies  fall 


91]  COSMICAL  GRAVITATION  153 

to  the  Earth's  surface,  when  extended  outwards  to  the  Moon 
in  accordance  with  the  law  of  inverse  squares,  almost  exactly 
accounts  for  the  fall  of  that  body  towards  the  Earth  in  each 
second  of  time.  If  the  Earth's  surface  attraction  be  extended 
outwards  to  the  Sun  in  the  same  manner  and  then  compared 
with  that  of  the  Sun  upon  the  Earth,  it  is  found  that  the  ef- 
fect of  the  latter  is  some  328,000  times  more  powerful  than 
the  former.  And  when  this  value  of  the  Sun's  attraction  is 
similarly  extended  from  the  Sun  outwards  to  each  planet  of 
the  Solar  System  successively,  it  is  found  to  account  for  the 
fall  of  these  bodies  in  each  second  with  the  same  exactness 
that  the  Earth's  attraction  accounts  for  that  of  the  Moon. 
Here  is  a  basis  for  the  theory  of  gravitation,  the  apparent  so- 
lidity and  strength  of  which  seems  to  be  completely  impreg- 
nable; and  truly  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  intellect 
of  a  Newton  should  place  great  reliance  upon  it.  But  that 
he  did  not  place  as  great  reliance  upon'  it  as  some  of  his  re- 
cent disciples  do,  sufficiently  appears  from  the  fact  that  he 
regarded  it  as  the  greatest  of  absurdities  to  imagine  "that  one 
body  might  act  upon  another  through  a  vacuum  without  the 
mediation  of  anything  else  by  and  through  which  their  action 
and  force  may  be  conveyed  from  one  to  another."  And  Sir 
William  Thomson  says  that  we  must  be  temporarily  satisfied 
to  explain  capillary  attraction  as  intensified  Newtonian  at- 
traction "until  we  see  how  gravity  itself  is  to  be  explained,  as 
Newton  and  Faraday  thought  it  must  be  explained,  by  some 
continuous  action  of  intervening  or  surrounding  matter."*  It 
is  this  continuous  action  of  surrounding  and  all-pervading 
matter  which  constitutes  the  essential  feature  of  the  new  the- 
ory we  are  now  considering;  and  the  wider  operations  of 
which  we  are  now  to  examine  more  closely. 

But  how  can  the  phenomena,  which  so  strongly  corroborate 
the  theory  of  gravitation,  be  accounted  for  on  the  basis  of 
the  material  connexions  which  the  new  theory  postulates? 
How  can  this  material  medium  explain  the  fact  that  the  fall 
per  second  of  every  body,  belonging  to  any  particular  system, 

*Nature,  34,  271. 


154  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [92 

is  related  to  that  of  any  other  body  of  the  same  system  in  the 
precise  ratio  of  their  square  distance  reciprocals? — that,  in 
fact,  in  any  particular  system,  the  fall  per  second  of  each  of 
its  members  towards  the  center  of  motion,  may  be  regarded 
as  a  uniform  function  of  the  distance  from  the  center?  Yet, 
strange  as  it  may  at  first  glance  appear,  the  material  cord 
which,  according  to  the  connective  theory,  joins  the  planet 
to  its  primary  and  causes  the  former  to  fall  towards  the  lat- 
ter, involves  exactly  the  same  distance  function  of  that  fall 
that  is  involved  in  the  theory  of  gravitation. 

What  there  is  between  the  sun  and  the  planets  that  makes 
each  of  them  pull  the  other,  Newton  did  not  know;  nobody 
knows  to  this  day,  and  all  we  are  now  able  to  assert  positive- 
ly is  that  the  known  motion  of  the  planet  is  precisely  what 
would  be  produced  if  it  were  fastened  to  the  sun  by  an  elastic 
string,  having  a  certain  law  of  elasticity.  Now  observe  the 
nature  of  this  discovery,  the  greatest  in  its  consequences  that 
has  ever  yet  been  made  in  physiral  science: — 

1.  It  begins  with  an  hypothesis,  by  supposing  that  there 
is  an  analogy  between  the  motion  of  a  planet  and  the  motion 
of  a  ball  at  the  end  of  a  string. 

2.  Science   becomes   independent  of  the   hypothesis,   for 
we  merely  use  it  to  investigate  the  properties  of  motion,  and 
do  not  trouble  ourselves  further  about  the  cause  of  it."* 

"By  the  thrust  of  an  incompressible  pole,  energy  is  trans- 
mitted from  butt  to  tip.  .  .  So  also  the  pull  of  gravitation 
may  be  (and  pro  tern.  I  believe  is)  transmitted  by  an  in- 
compressible (or  nearly  incompressible)  ether." t 

May  it  not  be,  indeed,  that,  in  the  former  quotation,  science 
has  become  too  independent  of  the  hypothesis — that,  in  fact, 
it  might  be  well  for  it  to  trouble  itself  with  an  earnest  and 
humble  inquiry  into  the  real  operation  of  this  ball-and-string 
theory?  The  elastic  string,  by  the  new  theory,  is  the  primary 
connexion  of  the  planet,  and  the  law  of  its  elasticity  we  may 
now  proceed  to  investigate. 

92.  The  Factors  of  Cosmical  Gravitation. — It  may  be  re- 
garded as  axiomatic  that  the  strength  of  the  various  connex- 

*Prof.  William  Kingdon  Clifford.      Discourse  at  the  Royal  Institution 
London.     Humboldt  Library  of  Science,  6,  281. 

tProf.  Oliver  J.  Lodge,  Nature,  47,  293. 


92]  COSMICAL  GRAVITATION  155 

ions  would  vary  with  the  different  circumstances  attending 
their  evolution.  It  may  be  well  to  consider  the  most  import- 
ant of  these,  whether  they  may  be  found  to  affect  the  strength 
of  the  connexion  or  not.  These  circumstances  are:  (a),  the 
rotational  velocity  of  the  primary  body;  (b),  the  structural 
development  of  the  connexion,  and  (c),  the  density  of  the  con- 
nective atmosphere  upon  the  surface  of  the  primary  body. 

(a).  Rotational  Velocity  of  the  Primary  Body. — This  fac- 
tor would  have  the  least  value  in  the  case  of  the  first  planet 
of  a  system,  and  would  gradually  increase  in  value  for  each 
subsequent  planet,  as  already  shown  (Art.  80,  e).  While  the 
planet-ring  was  extending  outwards  from  the  primary,  and  the 
primary  connexion  was  forming  between  the  two,  the  extra 
strain  which  the  greater  rotational  velocity  involves  in  the 
inner  or  more  subsequent  ring-formations  would  produce  some 
effect,  either  upon  the  connexion  or  the  ring  itself.  But  here 
we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  ring  i  j  a  solid  body  firmly  held 
together  by  molecular  attraction  or  cohesion.  This  cohesion 
would  evidently  be  more  powerful  than  the  centrifugal  tend- 
ency of  the  greater  rotational  velocity  of  the  ring,  at  least 
until  the  planet  was  formed  and  the  connexion  matured.  In 
fact  the  cohesive  attraction  and  the  centrifugal  tendency 
would  be  directly  opposed  to  one  another;  and  it  would  seem 
that  the  former  would  receive  the  full  brunt  of  the  latter,  so 
that  the  forming  connexion  would  be  left  unaffected  by  this 
cause.  The  sole  effect  of  this  factor,  therefore,  would  appear 
to  be  to  hasten  the  expansion  of  the  ring,  and  so  diminish  the 
generative  planetary  period.  So  that,  so  far  as  the  rotational 
factor  is  concerned  one  planetary  connexion  would  appear  to 
differ  in  no  respect  from  another. 

(b).  The  Structural  Development  of  the  Connexions. — For 
the  consideration  of  this  factor,  we  may  take  the  case  of  the 
Earth  and  the  Moon.  When  the  Earth  was  in  the  first  stage  of 
its  planetary  existence  as  a  globe  of  fiery  vapor,  not  only 
would  its  surface  be  vastly  enlarged,  in  comparison  with  its 
present  surface,  but  all  its  present  surface  development  would 
be  absent.  Nothing  but  the  primordial  vapor  existed  on  its 


156  THE   CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [92 

surface,  and  this  in  the  full  and  fiercest  energy  of  its  molec- 
ular heat-motion.  Can  we,  then,  avoid  the  belief  that  the 
structural  development  of  the  surrounding  connective  atmos- 
phere would  correspond  to  that  of  the  Earth's  surface  at  that 
time?  And  does  it  not  seem  equally  probahle  that,  as  the 
development  of  the  Earth's  surface  advanced,  the  development 
of  the  connective  atmosphere  would  advance  correspondingly? 
According  to  this  view,  then,  the  Earth's  connective  atmos- 
phere would  increase  in  development  as  the  Earth  contracted. 

Without  attempting  here  to  show  how  the  mechanism  by 
which  the  greater  central  development  of  the  Earth's  connec- 
tive atmosphere  would  cause  bodies  to  fall  towards  the  Earth's 
center,  it  seems  tolerably  evident  that  a  body  possessing  a 
certain  degree  of  development  would  be  moved  (by  means  of 
its  secondary  molecular  connexions,  or  connecting-rods,  with 
the  molecules  of  the  connective  atmosphere)  in  that  direction 
in  which  the  atmospheric  molecular  motions  were  most  in 
harmony  with  its  own.  Now  as  the  Earth  contracts  in  vol- 
ume subsequently  to  the  formation  of  the  Moon,  and  its  sur- 
face development  proceeds,  the  Moon's  connexion  must  be 
elongated  or  spun  out  over  the  interval  which  the  Earth  has 
contracted;  and  as  the  connective  atmosphere  itself  undoubt- 
edly furnishes  the  material  for  this  elongation,  it  clearly  fol- 
lows that  the  connexion  would  be  possessed  of  the  same  struc- 
tural development  at  every  successive  stage  as  the  Earth's 
connective  atmosphere. 

Here,  then,  is  a  circumstance  that  would  modify  a  plan- 
etary connexion  so  as  to  enable  it  to  act  in  a  manner  similar 
in  some  degree  to  that  prescribed  by  the  law  of  inverse 
squares.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  does  not  account  for  the 
distance-variation  of  the  planetary  falls  per  second;  for  the 
reason  that  each  planetary  connexion  would  be  almost  an 
exact  repetition  of  its  predecessors  in  this  respect.  The  pri- 
mary body  immediately  after  the  birth  of  each  successive 
planet  would  obviously  be  in  the  same  state  of  surface  devel- 
opment. About  the  same  degree  of  development  would  beget 
the  planetary  ring  in  each  case,  and  the  ring  would  in  every 


92]  COSMICAL  GRAVITATION  157 

case  appropriate  the  developed  crust  of  the  primary  down  to 
the  same  degree  of  development.  So  that  after  each  ring-sep- 
aration, the  remaining*  degree  of  development  of  the  primary 
would  be  the  same.  And  so  the  crust  development  of  the  pri- 
mary and  the  corresponding  development  of  the  connective 
atmosphere  would  be  similar  in  kind  and  degree  after  the 
birth  of  each  planet.  Therefore,  while  this  factor  applies  to 
an  individual  connexion,  modifying  it  in  accordance  with  the 
varying  structural  development  to  which  it  is  subject,  it  does 
not  apply  to  two  connexions  so  that  the  one  will  differ  in  any 
degree  from  the  other.  Indeed  it  may  be  objected,  perhaps, 
that  even  in  the  case  of  a  single  connexion,  the  varying  struc- 
tural development  of  the  primary  crust  would  fail  to  produce 
a  measurable  change  of  the  structural  development  of  the  con- 
nective atmosphere.  For,  subjected  to  the  most  intense  de- 
gree of  destruction  which  man  can  produce,  the  function  of 
the  connective  atmosphere  now  upon  the  Earth's  surface,  and 
which,  according  to  these  views,  would  now  be  highly  devel- 
oped, remains  precisely  the  same  as  under  ordinary  circum- 
stances. A  body  appears  to  weigh  none  the  less  when  cast 
into  the  fiercest  furnace,  although  the  connective  atmosphere 
ourrounding  it  at  that  time  is  subjected  to  a  very  intense  de- 
gree of  heat. 

But  in  answer  to  this  objection  it  may  be  remarked  that 
the  puny  furnaces  of  man  are  quite  incomparable  to  the  vast 
and  grand  catastrophes  of  Nature.  The  greatest  and  fiercest 
conflagration  possible  with  man  would  scarcely  be  a  drop  in 
the  ocean  of  the  Earth's  connective  atmosphere;  so  that  the 
structural  development  of  so  minute  a  portion  of  it  as  would 
thus  be  affected  by  our  fires  might  easily  be  maintained  by 
that  of  the  general  atmosphere  surrounding  it;  whose  molec- 
ular motions  we  know  are  capable  of  being  transmitted  near- 
ly 200,000  miles  in  a  single  second  of  time.  If  the  entire  sur- 
face of  the  Earth  were  simultaneously  subjected  to  an  intense 
degree  of  heat  the  effect  of  which  would  extend  for  thousands 
of  miles  beyond  the  surface,  then  we  would  have  something 
comparable  to  the  operations  of  Nature;  and  which  in  all 


158  THE  CONNECTIVE  THEORY  [92 

probability  would  diminish  in  a  degree  the  weight  of  every 
body  subjected  to  it.  The  nearest  we  can  approach  an  in- 
stance wherein  the  whole  of  a  body's  connective  atmosphere 
would  be  affected  is  by  way  of  analogy.  A  magnet,  if  sub- 
jected to  a  certain  degree  of  heat,  loses  its  power  of  attrac- 
tion in  a  degree;  and  even,  if  the  heat  be  sufficiently  intense, 
will  lose  that  power  wholly.  Yet,  without  undertaking  here 
to  prove  that  the  connective  atmospheres  of  the  magnet  and 
of  the  Earth  are  similar  with  respect  to  the  mechanism  of 
their  function  of  attraction,  it  seems  tolerably  plain  that  the 
loss  of  that  function  in  the  heated  magnet  is  due  to  the  de- 
struction of  some  such  molecular  arrangement  or  development 
as,  in  the  case  of  its  larger  analogue,  the  new  theory  implies. 
The  question  is  not  entirely  a  one-sided  one.  Prof.  W.  M. 
Hicks  in  his  presidential  address  to  the  British  Association, 
1895,  says: 

"The  effective  mass  of  any  atom  is  not  composed  of  that 
of  its  core  alone,  but  also  of  that  portion  of  the  surounding 
ether  which  is  carried  along  with  it  as  it  moves  tnrough  the 
medium.  ...  In  this  explanation  the  density  of  the  mat- 
ter composing  an  atom  is  the  same  for  all,  whilst  their  masses 
depend  on  their  volumes  and  configurations  combined.  Now 
the  configuration  alters  with  the  energy,  and  this  would  make 
the  mass  depend  to  some  extent  at  least  on  the  temperature. 
However  repugnant  this  may  be  to  current  ideas,  we  are  not 
entitled  to  deny  its  possibility,  although  such  an  effect  must 
be  small  or  it  would  have  been  detected." 

Also  Prof.  William  Crookes:* 

"It  must  be  remembered  that  we  only  know  the  force  of 
gravity  between  bodies  such  as  they  actually  exist,  and  we  do 
not  know  what  this  force  would  be  if  the  temperatures  of  the 
gravitating  masses  were  to  undergo  a  change." 

But  still  the  action  of  the  planetary  connexions  as  a  whole 
exhibit  no  trace  of  conformity  to  the  law  of  inverse  distance 
squares  upon  which  the  theory  of  gravitation  fundamentally 
rests.  There  is  yet  remaining,  however,  a  circumstance 
which,  as  we  shall  now  see,  fully  harmonizes  the  action  of 
the  connexions  with  that  law. 

*Quarterly  Journal  of  Science,  6,  254 


92]  COSMICAL   GRAVITATION  159 

(c).  The  Density  of  the  Connective  Atmosphere  Upon  the 
Surface  of  the  Primary  Body. — Let  us  in  imagination  extend 
the  volume  of  the  Sun  outwards  again  to  its  primordial  limits, 
or  nearly  to  Neptune's  orbit.  The  Sun's  surface  would  thus 
be  vastly  enlarged;  and  it  is  equally  obvious  that  the  density 
of  the  solar  connective  atmosphere  on  that  surface  would  di- 
minish in  the  precise  ratio  that  the  surface  increased.  It 
is  also  an  elementary  geometrical  truth  that  the  surface  of 
the  Sun  would  vary  in  the  direct  ratio  of  the  square  of  its 
distance  from  the  Sun's  center.  From  all  of  which  it  mani- 
festly follows  that  the  density  of  the  connective  atmosphere 
upon  the  Sun's  surface  varies  inversely  as  the  square  of  the 
distance  from  the  Sun's  center,  or  precisely  in  accordance  with 
the  distribution  of  the  supposed  force  of  gravity  in  the  theory 
of  gravitation. 

Let  us  suppose  now  that  the  Sun  has  contracted  in  volume, 
that  a  developed  crust  has  been  formed,  and  that  this  crust 
is  about  to  separate  from  the  Sun  to  form  the  Neptune-ring. 
The  inchoate  planetary  connexion  would  be  evolved  out  of  the 
Sun's  connective  atmosphere,  which  at  that  time  possessed  a 
certain  degree  of  density;  and  it  seems  very  evident  that  the 
density  of  the  forming  connexion  would  be  similar  to,  or  at 
least  modified  in  conformity  with,  that  of  the  connective  at- 
mosphere out  of  which  it  was  spun.  It  seems  unquestionable, 
from  the  view  we  are  now  able  to  take,  that  the  connexion 
would  be  evolved  out  of  the  connective  atmosphere  of  the  pri- 
mary body.  And  since  the  centrifugal  tendency  of  the  ring's 
rotation  affects  the  forming  connexion  to  a  merely  infinitesi- 
mal degree,  if  at  all,  being  primarily  directed  against  the  co- 
hesive attraction  of  the  ring  itself  and  bringing  about  its  even- 
tual disruption — no  conceivable  reason  seems  assignable  why 
the  density  of  the  connexion  should  be  either  greater  or  less 
than  that  of  the  material  out  of  which  it  was  formed.  From 
this  it  clearly  follows  that  the  primary  connexion  of  the 
planet  Neptune,  or  so  much  of  it  as  was  formed  up  to  the 
time  of  the  rupture  of  the  Neptune-ring,  would  have  a  consti- 
tution precisely  conformable  in  degree  of  densiy,  strength,  and 


160  THE  CONNECTIVE  THEORY  [92 

elasticity  to  that  of  the  connective  atmosphere  of  the  Sun  in 
the  period  in  which  ftie  ring  existed.  After  the  rupture  of  the 
ring,  as  the  Sun  contracted  in  volume,  and  as  the  density  of 
its  connective  atmosphere  consequently  increased,  the  newly 
formed  portions  of  the  planetary  connexion  would  partake  of 
the  increased  density  of  that  atmosphere,  and  would  therefore 
be  stronger  than  the  portion  of  it  that  was  first  formed.  But 
a  connexion,  in  common  with  everything  else,  can  not  be 
stronger  than  its  weakest  part;  so  that,  whether  the  planet 
moves  outwards  or  inwards  from  the  place  of  its  ring-exist- 
ence, the  portion  of  its  connexion  formed  in  that  place  would 
for  all  subsequent  ages  determine  the  strength  and  elasticity 
of  the  entire  connexion  as  such. 

Let  the  Sun  still  farther  contract  in  volume,  and  let  a  sec- 
ond planet-ring  project  outwards  from  its  surface.  At  this 
period  the  connective  atmosphere  upon  the  Sun  would  obvious- 
ly be  denser  than  in  the  period  of  Neptune  in  the  ratio  of  the 
inverse  squares  of  the  Sun's  radii  at  these  periods,  as  al- 
ready shown.  The  density  of  the  connexion  of  the  second 
planet  would,  therefore  be  greater  than  that  of  the  first  con- 
nexion beyond  the  second  planet  in  the  same  ratio  that  the 
surface  density  of  the  connective  atmosphere  was  greater  at 
the  later  time.  And  the  greater  strength  and  elasticity  thus 
conferred  upon  the  second  connexion  would  regulate  its  ac- 
tion as  a  whole  for  future  ages,  just  as  in  the  case  of  the 
first  connexion.  Still  farther  contraction  of  the  Sun  would 
beget  a  third  ring  and  a  density  and  consequent  strength  and 
elasticity  of  the  connective  atmosphere  and  therefore  of  the 
planetary  connexion  formed  out  of  it,  which  would  be  greater 
than  in  the  preceding  periods  in  the  same  ratio  as  before. 
And  so  on,  in  the  case  of  every  subsequent  planet-ring  and 
planetary  connexion  in  the  Solar  System. 

Had  we  commenced  with  any  other  system,  the  reasoning 
would  have  been  exactly  the  same.  The  Saturnian  System 
was  evolved  in  precisely  the  same  manner,  but  more  rapidly, 
owing  to  the  greater  rotational  velocity  of  the  original  spher- 
oid of  that  system.  And  the  Terrestrial  System  was  similarly 


93]  COSMICAL  GRAVITATION  161 

evolved,  only  the  comparative  slowness  of  the  Earth's  rota- 
tion causes  the  generative  period  to  be  much  greater.  And 
similarly  also,  no  doubt,  in  the  cases  of  those  systems  which 
are  superior  to  the  Solar  System,  even  up  to  the  Sidereal  Sys- 
tem itself. 

93.  Difference  Between  the  Actionsi  of  Gravitation  in  the 
Two  Theories. — Here,  then,  in  the  case  of  the  attraction  of 
gravitation,  is  the  general  law  of  inverse  squares  exemplified 
in  the  connective  theory  of  cosmical  evolution  precisely  the 
same  as  in  the  theory  of  gravitation.  The  restraining 
strength  of  a  planetary  connexion  is  seen  to  vary  inversely 
with  the  square  of  the  distance  at  which  it  acts,  just  the 
same  as  in  the  case  of  the  force  of  gravity  Where,  then,  it 
may  be  asked,  is  the  difference  between  the  restraining  ac- 
tion of  a  connexion  and  the  supposed  force  of  the  present 
theory?  A  moment's  consideration  will  suffice  to  make  this 
clear.  For  in  the  case  of  a  primary  connexion,  the  restraining 
energy  is  constant,  whether  the  planet  moves  outwards  from, 
or  inwards  towards,  its  primary.  The  absolute  velocity  of  a 
planet  in  its  orbit  would  also  be  invariable  (in  the  absence  of 
external  agencies,  of  course,  and  aside  from  mutual  accelera- 
tions and  retardations  caused  by  the  secondary  connexions 
— and  possibly  one  other  cause  to  be  considered  later  on) 
for  the  reason  that  there  is  nothing  conceivable  to  which  any 
change  of  it  is  assignable  (see  Art.  41) ;  although  its  angular 
velocity,  owing  to  various  causes,  may  vary  considerably. 
Therefore,  since  the  restraining  power  of  the  connexion,  and 
also  the  absolute  velocity  of  the  undisturbed  planet  are  con- 
stant, it  is  manifest  that  if  the  planet,  owing  to  any  ordinary 
disturbing  cause,  should  move  beyond  its  normal  distance, 
the  centrifugal  tendency  would  diminish,  owing  to  the  diminu- 
tion of  the  planet's  angular  velocity  involved  in  the  outward 
movement.  It  is  very  plain,  therefore,  that  the  outward  move- 
ment would  not  continue  very  long  subject  to  a  continually 
diminishing  centrifugal  tendency  and  a  constant  restraining 
power.  And  it  is  equally  obvious  that  if  the  planet  would 
move  inwards  to  less  than  its  normal  distance,  the  centrifugal 


162  THE  CONNECTIVE  THEORY  [93 

tendency  would  increase,  owing  to  the  increased  angular  ve- 
locity accompanying  the  inward  movement;  and  that  this  in- 
ward movement  could  not  long  continue  subject  to  a  contin- 
ually increasing  centrifugal  tendency  and  a  constant  restrain- 
ing power. 

By  the  connective  theory,  then,  it  would  be  a  physical  im- 
possibility lor  a  planet  to  move  beyond  a  limited  range  of  its 
normal  distance  from  its  primary  in  consequence  of  the  or- 
dinary perturbations  to  which  it  is  subject,  such  as  the  ac- 
celerations and  retardations  of  the  secondary  connexions.  But 
compare  this  now  with  the  supposed  force  of  gravity.  As 
the  planet  would  move  outwards,  the  restraining  force,  in- 
stead of  remaining  constant  upon  it  like  the  elasticity  of  the 
connexions,  would  continually  diminish  in  power;  so  that,  in 
order  that  the  planet  may  not  fly  entirely  away  from  the  Sun, 
it  becomes  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  absolute  velocity  of 
the  planet  becomes  less  as  it  moves  outwards,  and  the  cen- 
trifugal tendency  thus  diminished  in  just  the  _same  ratio  as 
the  supposed  restraining  force.  Similarly  as  the  planet  moves 
inwards,  the  power  of  the  supposed  restraining  force  would 
increase  upon  it;  so  that,  in  order  to  prevent  its  falling  upon 
the  Sun,  it  becomes  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  planet's  ab- 
solute velocity  is  increased,  that  the  increased  centrifugal 
tendency  thus  generated  may  balance  the  increased  radial 
force.  And  this  necessity  of  some  means  of  thus  maintaining 
the  balance  of  the  two  opposing  tendencies  appears  to  be  the 
sole  justification  for  supposing  that  such  a  change  of  the 
planet's  absolute  velocity  would  take  place;  as  no  other  ade- 
quate means  of  maintaining  that  balance,  in  accordance  with 
the  theory  of  gravitation,  is  conceivable. 

We  thus  see  that  even  the  very  foundation  stones  of  the 
theory  of  gravitation  are  readily,  and  even  advantageously, 
replaceable  by  the  material  of  the  connective  theory;  and,  if 
it  be  granted  that  the  law  of  equal  areas  has  no  foundation 
in  fact,  as  our  investigations  so  far  seem  to  prove,  then  the 
theory  of  gravitation  has  really  no  foundation  at  all,  and 


94]  COSMICAL  GRAVITATION  163 

stands  condemned  by  the  very  phenomena  which  have  hitherto 
been  regarded  as  furnishing  its  main  support. 

94.  Action  of  the  Secondary  Connexions. — With  respect  to 
the  action  of  such  connexions  as  those  of  the  planets  with 
one  another  and  those  of  the  Sun  with  the  satellites,  its  na- 
ture does  not  at  the  present  stage  of  the  inquiry  appear  to  be 
determinable.  These  connexions  would  evidently  differ  from 
the  primary  connexions  in  their  function  and  consequently  in 
their  materiality.  As  already  indicated,  the  former  would  be 
more  refined,  and  would  therefore  possess  less  strength. 
Consequently  their  action  would  be  characterized  by  less  en- 
ergy and  power.  But  what  diminution  of  energy  and  power 
of  action  would  be  attributable  to  these  causes  does  not  seem 
to  be  ascertainable  owing  to  the  quanitative  vagueness  of  the 
causes  themselves.  The  secondary  connexions  would  certain- 
ly cause  considerable  effects  upon  the  motions  of  the  bodies 
between  which  they  subtend.  In  fact  their  actions  would  con- 
stitute the  ordinary  causes  of  planetary  perturbations.  In  the 
case  of  two  planets  thus  connected,  the  connexion  would  at 
certain  times  retard  the  orbital  motion  of  one  and  accelerate 
that  of  the  other,  while,  at  other  times,  these  actions  would  be 
reversed;  thus  causing  the  chief  anomalies  of  planetary  mo- 
tions which  we  observe.  Similarly  in  the  case  of  the  Moon, 
the  secondary  connexion  of  that  body  with  the  Sun  would  at 
times  accelerate  its  motion  round  the  Earth  and  at  other 
times  retard  it;  thus  no  doubt  giving  rise  to  the  wider  pecul- 
iarities which  the  lunar  motion  is  observed  to  possess.  The 
Moon's  connexions  with  the  other  planets  would  also  produce 
noticeable  effects  upon  its  motion.  But  none  of  these  effects 
appears  to  be  calculable  at  the  present  time.  In  corrob- 
oration  of  this  the  most  recent  authorities  on  this  subject  are 
compelled  to  admit  that,  from  actual  observation,  the  various 
peculiarities  of  the  lunar,  and  even  of  the  planetary  motions, 
are  yet  by  no  means  all  accounted  for.  And  in  still  stronger 
corroboration,  it  has  been  pointed  out  by  Poincaire  (Report 
to  the  International  Congress  in  Physics,  1900)  that  "the  mass 
of  Jupiter  as  derived  from  the  orbits  of  its  satellites,  as  de- 


164  THE   CONNECTIVE   THEORY  [95 

rived  from  its  perturbations  of  the  large  planets,  and  as  de- 
rived from  its  perturbations  of  the  small  planets,  has  three 
different  values."* 

95.  Accurate  Prediction  of 'Astronomical  Events. — It  may 
perhaps  be  wondered  how  such  accurate  prediction  of  astro- 
nomical events,  such  as  eclipses,  conjunctions,  transits,  etc., 
can  be  made  in  connection  with  such  imperfect  knowledge  ot 
the  causes  affecting  the. lunar  and  planetary  orbits.  But  it 
is  to  be  observed  that  such  astronomical  events  are  not  pre- 
dicted from  our  knowledge  of  these  causes  themselves,  but 
from  our  knowledge  of  their  effects,  as  ascertained  from  act- 
ual observation.  From  long-continued  observation  of  the  act- 
ual anomalies  of  the  motions  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  we  are  at 
length  enabled  to  foretell  with  a  high  degree  of  accuracy  the 
orbital  positions  of  any  or  all  of  these  bodies  at  any  particular 
time,  providing  it  be  not  too  remote.  But  this  does  not  ap- 
pear to  involve  any  knowledge  whatever  of  the  real  causes 
which  produce  these  phenomena.  The  computation  of  future 
events  seems  to  be  grounded  almost  entirely  upon  the  obser- 
vaions  of  similar  events  in  the  past;  upon  the  observed  ef- 
fects of  certain  causes  and  conditions  similar  to  those  to 
which  the  future  event  is  known  to  be  subject;  in  fact  upon 
a  practical  rather  than  upon  a  theoretic  basis. 

"The  eccentricities  of  the  planetary  orbits  are  partly  de- 
duced from  observation,  and  partly  from  the  law  of  the  equa- 
ble description  of  areas.  The  inclinations  of  the  orbits;  and, 
of  course,  all  elements  relating  to  the  planets'  own  globes, 
their  dimensions,  compression,  inclination,  rotation,  and  so 
on,  are  obtained  by  telescopic  observation  and  measure- 
ment.''! 

"In  general  all  the  data  of  astronomy  are  determined  in 
this  way,  and  the  same  may  be  said  of  such  subjects  as 
Tides  and  Meteorology.  Isothermal  Lines,  Lines  of  Equal 
Dip  or  Intensity,  Lines  of  No  Declination,  the  Connection  of 
Solar  Spots  with  Terrestial  Magnetism,  and  a  host  of  other 
phenomena  .  .  .  are  thus  deducible  from  Observation 
merely."  J 

*Nature,    97,   401. 

f  Prof.  R.  A.  Proctor,  Ency.  Britt.,  Art.  Astron. 

^Thomson  and  Tait's  Elements  of  Natural  Philosophy,  p.  111. 


96]  COSMTCAL  GRAVITATION  165 

96.  Ethereal  Atmospheres. — It  has  been  observed  that,  by 
the  new  theory,  solar  gravitation  upon  a  new  planet  consisted 
in  the  elasticity  of  the  primary  bond  between  planet  and  Sun. 
[t  was  noticed  also  that  this  planetary  bond,  owing  to  the  con- 
traction and  development  of  the  planet's  surface,  becomes 
correspondingly  developed  in  structure  and  density  as  it  ap- 
proaches the  planet's  surface.  Such  also  would,  no  doubt,  be 
the  case  with  all  of  the  planet's  connexions  all  around  it. 

There  would  also  be  a  reserve  ethereal  atmosphere  around 
each  planet.  The  approaches  and  departures  of  heavenly 
bodies  to  and  from  each  other  implies  accretion  and  drain 
of  ethereal  bond-substance  upon  each  at  different  times;  but 
the  drains  would  often  be  supplied  from  the  primordial  vapor 
of  the  newly  born  planets,  because  that  vapor  would  be  more 
simple  in  structure  and  therefore  more  yielding  to  the  strain, 
than  the  connective  atmosphere  upon  a  developed  planet;  so 
that  on  the  latter  there  would  always  be  a  surplus  of  accre- 
tion over  depletion  of  bond-substance  constituting  an  ethereal 
atmosphere  appertaining  to  it. 

Indeed  it  appears  to  be  a  characteristic  of  all  bodies,  great 
and  small,  to  possess  such  ethereal  atmospheres;  the  greater 
density  of  the  ether  at  and  near  a  body's  surface  accounting 
for  several  common  phenomena.  A  good  conductor  of  elec- 
tricity has  such  an  atmosphere  which  is  always  the  seat  of 
the  transmission  of  an  electric  current  along  it,  which  barely 
if  at  all,  penetrates  the  surface  of  the  conductor.  Contact 
electricity  is  also  explained  by  such  atmospheres,  as  also  the 
diffraction  of  light,  sonorous  sand,  etc.  Gases  adhere  to  such 
surfaces  with  such  tenacity  that  they  can  hardly  be  driven 
away  without  melting  the  substance. 

"The  neighborhood  of  gross  matter  seems  also  to  render 
the  ether  more  dense.  It  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  It  can 
really  condense  an  incompressible  fluid,  but  it  may  load  it, 
or  otherwise  modify  it,  so  as  to  produce  the  effect  of  Increas- 
ed  density.  In  iron  this  density  reaches  its  highest  known 
value,  and  in  all  substances  the  density  or  inertia  per  unit 
volume  of  their  ether  may  be  denoted  by  m,  and  called  their 
magnetic  permeability."* 

*Sir    Oliver   J.    Ledge,    Nature,    38,    389. 


166  THE   CONNECTIVE   THEORY  [97 

"It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  dielectric  strength  of  a 
thin  stratum  of  air  (near  a  conductor)  is  much  greater  than 
that  of  a  thick  one.  It  is  very  difficult  to  understand  why 
this  should  be  so.  'Is  it  possible  that  the  air  very  near  to  the 
surface  of  dense  bodies  is  condensed,  so  as  to  become  a  better 
insulator?'  "* 

97.  Terrestrial  Gravitation. — It  is  such  an  ethereal  atmos- 
phere as  this  that  is  the  seat  of  what  is  called  the  attraction 
of  gravity  upon  the  Earth's  surface,  and  upon  the  surface  of 
every  heavenly  body.  Both  the  structural  development  and 
the  density  of  this  atmosphere  would  vary  approximately  as 
the  inverse  square  of  the  distance  from  the  Earth's  center. 
Smaller  bodies  would  have  less  dense  atmospheres  and  there- 
fore weaker  gravitational  action.,  A  body  suspended  in  this 
atmosphere  would  be  drawn  in  all  directions,  but  mostly  tow- 
ards the  Earth's  center  because  the  density  is  greater  on  that 
side.  And  if  an  opening  extended  downwards  through  the 
Earth's  crust,  this  atmosphere  would  continue  inwards  and 
be  of  greater  density  there  than  at  the  surface,  if  only  from 
mere  geometrical  concentration.  This  explains  the  otherwise 
surprising  result  of  Airy's  gravitational  experiment  at  the  bot- 
tom of  Harton  colliery,  where  the  effect  of  gravity  was  found 
to  be  considerably  greater  than  at  the  surface,  though  by  the 
current  theory  it  should  be  less;  and  it  also  explains  why  the 
great  mass  of  the  Himalaya  mountains  have  no  effect  on  the 
plumbline,  in  direct  violation  of  the  law  of  gravitation  (see 
Art.  21). 

The  mechanism  of  the  attraction  would  reside  in  the  sec- 
ondary molecular  connexions.  These  would  act  in  a  manner 
similar  to  the  function  of  the  sidebars  on  the  driving  wheels 
of  a  locomotive  engine;  communicating  motion  from  one  at- 
om or  molecule  to  another.  While  these  secondary  connex- 
ions become  easily  detached  from  one  revolving  component 
and  united  with  another,  there  would  still  be  some  strain  ex- 
erted along  them  between  the  two  components  they  unite;  and 

*Prof.  George  Chrystal,  Ency.  Britt.,  9th  ed.,  8,  61.  The  last  quo- 
tation is  from  Maxwell's  Elec.  and  Mag.,  1.  57.  See  also  in  same  con- 
nection Prof.  F.  E.  Nipher,  Pres.  Add.,  Am.  Assoc.,  1891,  and  Dr. 
Young,  Phil.  Trans.,  R.  S.  92,  21 


97]  OOSMICAL  GRAVITATION  167 

this  strain  it  is  that  draws  the  body  downwards.  The  effect 
of  any  one  connexion  would  be  extermely  small,  but  the  di- 
mensions of  the  orbit al'motions  involved  being  extremely  mi- 
nute— much  more  so  than  those  of  the  motions  of  heat  and 
light — and  therefore  their  number  so  inconceivably  great, 
their  differential  effect  downwards  would  not  be  inconsider- 
able. Chemical  action,  the  conduction  of  heat,  and  the  trans- 
mission of  light  admit  of  easy  explanation  by  this  theory; 
these  different  manifestations  of  energy  being  simply  differ- 
ences of  atomic  or  molecular  orbital  velocities  and  magni- 
tudes, which  are  transmitted  from  one  atom  or  molecule  to 
adjoining  atoms  or  molecules  by  means  of  these  secondary 
connecting-rods. 

How  far  this  ethereal  atmosphere  would  extend  above  a 
planet's  surface  is  not  easy  to  determine,  but  probably  not 
many  times  farther  than  the  aerial  atmosphere.  How  far  it 
extends  below  a  planet's  surface  would  be  determined  by  the 
thickness  of  the  developed  crust,  probably  attaining  its  great- 
est density  not  far  from  the  middle  of  that  thickness. 

At  least  this  planetary  attraction  is  of  an  entirely  different 
nature  from  the  agency  holding  the  planet  in  its  orbit;  for 
though  the  ethereal  atmosphere  of  a  primary  body  once  ex- 
tended outwards  to  planetary  distances,  yet  when  that  pri- 
mary contracts  its  volume,  the  ethereal  atmosphere  would  con- 
tract with  it,  leaving  only  the  various  connexions  behind. 
These  connexions  would  be  the  seat  of  the  so-called  planetary 
gravitation,  which  would  be  constant  for  each  planet,  as  just 
seen  (Art.  92,  c) ;  while  the  ethereal  atmosphere  would  be 
the  seat  of  the  so-called  attraction  of  gravitation  as  we  know 
it  on  the  Earth's  surface,  which,  with  some  modifications, 
would  vary  inversely  as  the  square  of  the  central  distance. 


CHAPTER   VI 


COSMICAL   DISTRIBUTION  OF  HEAT  AND  LIGHT 


As  Prof,  Young  observes,  "perhaps  we  assume  with  a  little 
too  much  conffdence  that  in  free  space  radiation  does  take 
place  equally  in  all  directions,"  and  he  asks  whether  the  con- 
stitution of  things  may  not  be  such  that  radiation  and  trans- 
fer of  energy  can  take  place  only  between  ponderable  masses  ; 
and  that  too,  without  the  expenditure  of  energy  upon  the 
transmitting  agent  (if  such  exists)  along  the  line  of  trans- 
mission, even  in  transitu.  If  this  were  the  case,  then  the  sun 
would  send  out  its  energy  only  to  planets,  meteors,  and  sis- 
ter stars,  wasting  none  in  empty  space;  and  so  its  loss  would 
be  enormously  diminished,  and  the  time  scale  of  the  planetary 
system  would  be  correspondingly  extended. 

—SAMUEL  LAING. 

The  fact  is  that  neither  the  corpuscular  nor  the  undula- 
tory,  or  any  other  system  which  has  yet  been  devised,  will 
furnish  that  complete  and  satisfactory1  explanation  of  all  the 
phenomena  of  light  which  is  desirable.  Certain  admissions 
must  be  made  at  every  step,  as  to  modes  of  mechanical 
action,  where  we  are  in  total  ignorance  of  the  acting  forces; 
and  we  are  called  on,  where  reasoning  fails  .us  occasionally,  for 
an  exercise  of  faith.— SIR  JOHN  HERSCHEL. 

There  is  no  absurdity  so  palpable  but  that  it  may  be 
firmly  planted  in  the  human  mind  if  you  only  begin  to  incul- 
cate it  before  the  age  of  five,  by  constantly  repeating  it  with 
an  air  of  great  solemnity.  For,  as  in  the  case  of  animals, 
so  in  that  of  man,  training  is  successful  only  when  you  begin 
in  early  youth.— ARTHUR  SCHOPENHAUER. 

98.  The  Connective  Theory  of  Heat  Distribution. — By  the 
popular  theory,  the  Sun's  heat  and  light  is  equally  diffused 
outwards  in  all  directions  from  that  body;  diminishing  at  any 
point  in  the  same  ratio  that  the  square  of  its  distance  from 
the  heat  and  light  source  increases.  The  confusion  resulting 
from  this  view,  regarding  the  actual  temperature  of  the  Sun, 
has  been  already  noticed  (Art.  50) ;  and  it  is  significant  that 
this  view  makes  the  Sun  to  be  much  hotter  than  is  found  to 
be  the  case  from  actual  observation. 


98]  COSMICAL  DISTRIBUTION  OF  HEAT  AND  LIGHT  169 

Now  the  teaching  of  the  new  theory  with  respect  to  solar 
heat  is,  it  may  be  said,  almost  the  reverse  of  Newton's  theory. 
Instead  of  the  Sun's  heat  being  diffused  outwards  from  the 
Sun  equally  in  all  directions,  it  would  be  distributed  trom  that 
body  in  a  comparatively  small  number  of  lines  or  connexions ; 
which  being  chiefly  with  bodies  vastly  smaller  than  the  Sun, 
the  heat  instead  of  being  diffused  outwards  to  these  bodies, 
would  rather  be  concentrated  upon  them.  But  it  is  far  from 
being  contended  here  that,  on  this  account,  the  Sun's  surface 
temperature  is  less  than  that  we  receive  on  our  hottest  sum- 
mer day.  We  really  do  not  know  what  the  Sun's  temperature 
is,  and  can  as  yet  assign  to  it  only  a  probable  value.  The  un- 
known factors  which  render  the  real  value  uncertain  are  nu- 
merous and  important;  but  it  does  not  appear  impossible  that 
at  some  future  day  we  may  determine  them  all,  and  so  ascer- 
tain the  actual  temperature. 

In  the  first  place,  we  have  no  apparent  means  of  knowing 
what  portion  of.  the  actual  solar  heat  is  imparted  to  the  con- 
nective substance  at  the  Sun's  surface.  In  the  second  place, 
we  cv.uiot  say  how  the  transmission  through  the  connective 
substance  affects  the  unknown  portion  thus  imparted.  In  the 
third  place,  we  possibly  are  not  quite  certain  of  the  effect  of 
our  own  upper  atmosphere  upon  the  unknown  portion  thus 
transmitted  to  it.  And  there  are  still  other  unknown  factors 
of  minor  importance.  We  cannot  reason  here  from  analogy 
because  we  have  no  analogue.  We  are  surrounded  on  all 
sides  by  a  connective  atmosphere  made  up  of  an  unknown 
number  of  individual  connexions  of  an  unknown  number  of 
kinds;  and  we  cannot  separate  with  certainty  the  effect  or  in- 
fluence of  any  one  from  the  effect  or  influence  of  the  others. 
Heat  is  a  species  of  motion;  but  it  is  not  certain  whether 
some  other  species  of  motion,  which  is  not  heat,  may  or  may 
not  generate  heat  motion  in  certain  substances,  or  vice  versa. 
By  the  new  theory,  hear,  is  but  a  degree  of  an  essential,  if  not 
indeed  the  essential,  property  of  all  matter;  and  we  know  not 
yet  how  many  degrees  are  mutually  interchangeable.  We 
may,  therefore,  leave  the  discussion  of  these  questions  for  the 


170  THE   CONNECTIVE  THEORY  [99 

present,  until  at  least  we  see  what  light  the  examination  of 
cosmical  evolution  in  its  future  processes  may  cast  upon  them. 
99.  Comparison  of  the  Two  Theories. — The  new  theory 
places  us  apparently  in  no  greater  dilemma,  in  this  respect, 
than  we  are  now  in,  for  the  same  difficulties  (together  with 
several  others  more  important)  are  met  with  in  the  present 
theory  also,  as  the  following  quotations  show: 

"If  we  had  a  thermometer  so  long  that  we  could  dip  the 
bulb  into  the  sun  and  read  the  degrees  on  the  stem  here,  we 
should  find  out  what  observers  would  like  very  much  to  know, 
and  at  present  are  disposed  to  quarrel  about.  The  difficulty 
is  not  in  measuring  the  heat,  but  in  telling  what  temperature 
corresponds  to  it,  since  there  is  no  known  rule  by  which  to 
find  one  from  the  other."* 

"The  energy  of  vibrational  radiations  is  a  transformation  of 
the  heat  of  a  hot  body,  and  can  be  again  frittered  down  into 
heat,  but  in  the  interval  of  its  passage  through  space,  devoid 
of  tangible  matter,  or  even  while  passing  unabsorbed  through 
tangible  matter,  it  is  not  necessarily  heat."t 

Also  Prof.  W.  K.  Clifford  states :  "There  is  no  reason  why 
the  vibratory  motions  of  the  ether  should  not  be  transformed 
into  other  kinds  of  ethereal  motions."  And  many  other  phys- 
icists might  be  quoted  to  the  same  effect. 

That  heat  in  certain  cases  is  transformed  into  other  kinds 
of  energy,  is  now  a  commonplace  of  the  school-books.  One 
instance  of  this  transformation  is  that,  in  the  powerful  fric- 
tion caused  by  boring  iron,  as  in  the  making  of  cannon,  the 
enormous  amount  of  heat  thus  generated  disappears  at  once, 
as  such,  when  the  iron  operated  on  is  strongly  magnetized. 
But  whether  or  not  similar  transformations  take  place  in  our 
own  amosphere,  or  in  the  solar  atmosphere,  in  the  region  be- 
tween me  two,  or  in  all  three,  is  equally  an  unknown  factor 
in  either  theory. 

But  although  these  uncertainties  are  common  to  both  the- 
ories, none  of  the  more  serious  objections,  which  the  present 
theory  involves,  is  applicable  to  the  new  theory.  We  certain- 
ly would  not  infer  from  the  latter,  as  is  unavoidably  infer- 
able from  the  former,  that  the  Sun's  temperature  would  be 

*Prof.   S.  P.  Langley,   Century  Magazine,  Dec.   1884. 
tProf.  P.  G.  Tait. 


99]  COSMICAL  DISTRIBUTION  OF  HEAT  AND  LIGHT  171 

several  millions  of  degrees ;  that  the  temperature  of  the  Earth 
ought  to  be  much  higher  during  our  winter  than  during  our 
summer;  or  that  more  solar  heat  would  be  received  at  the 
North  Pole  during  our  summer  than  would  be  received  at  the 
Equator  (see  Arts.  50-1-2-3). 

With  respect  to  this  last  inference,  the  old  theory  assumes 
that  equal  areas  at  right  angles  to  the  solar  beams  receive 
the  same  amount  of  sunheat,  whether  at  the  Pole  or  at  the 
Equator;  whereas,  the  new  theory  implies,  on  the  contrary, 
that  the  amounts  of  sunheat  which  fall  upon  equal  areas 
at  right  angles  to  the  solar  beams  on  different  portions  of 
the  Earth's  surface  are  not  equal,  but  vary  directly  about  as 
the  Earth-masses  directly  behind  such  areas  from  the  Sun; 
because  the  density  of  the  tension-  or  heat-rays  of  the  solar 
connexion  reasonably  depends  upon  the  mass  rather  than 
upon  the  surface  to  which  it  is  distributed;  and  because  the 
amount  of  solar  radiation  obviously  would  vary  directly  as 
the  density  of  these  connexion-rays  transmitting  it.  In  other 
words,  the  heat  falling  on  a  certain  area  normally  exposed 
to  the  solar  beams  on  dinerent  portions  of  the  Earth's  sur- 
face varies  approximately  as  the  portion  of  the  ray's  path  pro- 
duced included  between  the  opposite  surfaces  of  the  Earth; 
varies,  i.  e.,  as  the  cosine  of  the  Sun's  zenith  distance.  But 
as  the  actual  surface  of  the  Earth  directly  behind  the  area 
perpendicular  to  the  solar  rays  (i.  e.,  the  area  of  the  shadow 
of  the  latter)  varies  as  the  sine  of  the  Sun's  zenith  distance, 
we  have,  at  the  equinoxes,  the  relative  solar  heat  upon  a  cer- 
tain area  on  any  portion  of  the  Earth's  surface  having  the  Sun 
in  its  meridian  approximately  determined  by  the  quotient  of 
the  cosine,  divided  by  the  sine,  of  the  latitude.  Thus  accord- 
ing to  these  circumstances  the  Sun's  zenith  distance  would 
be  very  great  near  the  Poles  and  very  small  near  the  Equa- 
tor (or  equal  to  the  latitudes  of  these  places  at  the  equinox 
es) ;  and  therefore  its  cosine  would  be  very  small  at  the  for- 
mer and  very  great  at  the  latter  place.  Also  the  sine  of  the 
Sun's  zenith  distance  is  very  small  near  the  Equator  but  very 
great  near  the  Poles.  The  relative  amount  of  heat  at  the 


172  THE  CONNECTIVE  THEORY  [101 

Poles  would  therefore  be  represented  by  the  very  small  cosine 
divided  by  the  very  large  sine,  while  at  the  Equator  it  would 
be  represented  by  the  very  large  cosine  divided  by  the  very 
small  sine.  Thus  the  actual  solar  heat  falling  upon  a  unit 
area  near  the  Equator  would  be  refatively  much  greater  than 
by  the  current  theory,  while  that  received  upon  a  unit  area 
near  the  Poles  would  be  much  smaller  than  by  that  theory; 
which  appears  to  agree  precisely  with  the  observed  facts  and 
accounts  fully  for  the  low  temperature  of  the  Frigid  Zones  as 
compared  with  that  of  the  Torrid  Zone. 

100.  Heat  Transmission  by  the  Secondary  Connexions. — 
It  is  reasonably  supposable  that,  in  accordance  with  the  new 
theory,  a  greater  degree  of  heat  would  be  trasmitted  from  the 
Sun  through  the  primary  connexions  with  the  planets  than 
through  the  secondary  connexions  with  the  satellites  and  oth- 
er bodies.  This  would  naturally  follow  from  the  supposed 
comparative  grossness,  density,  and  strength  of  the  former 
connexions.  It  appears  probable  also  that  the  solar  connex- 
ions with  remoter  bodies,  such  as  the  fixed  stars,  and  per- 
haps some  comets,  transmit  little  or  no  heat.  By  the  new 
theory  the  planet  Saturn  would  at  the  present  time  be  ap- 
proximately in  the  same  physical  state  as  the  Sun;  i.  e.,  an 
intensely  heated  gaseous  body;  yet  as  our  connexion  with  it 
gives  no  evidence  of  such  heat,  we  are  left  to  conclude  that 
little  or  no  heat  is  transmitted  by  such  connexions.  More- 
over it  is  likely  that  heat  transmitted  through  even  the  pri- 
mary connexions  would  be  chiefly,  or  perhaps  wholly,  in  one 
direction,  or  from  the  primary  to  the  derived  body.  And  final- 
ly it  would  be  almost  self-evident  that  as  the  Sun  contracted 
its  volume  and  its  crust  became  hard  and  cold,  the  heat-sup- 
ply to  the  primarily  connected  bodies  would  be  very  pro- 
foundly modified  accordingly. 

101.  Connective  Theory  of  Light  Distribution. — In  our  in- 
vestigations regarding  light,  much  the  same  preliminary  re- 
marks apply  as  in  the  phenomena  of  heat.  The  light  energy 
would  travel  only  in  the  connexions;  and  that  of  the  primary 
would  be  somewhat  concentrated  upon  the  derived  body  in 


101]  COSMICAL  DISTRIBUTION  OF  HEAT  AND  LIGHT  173 

the  same  manner  as  the  heat  energy.  Of  the  actual  amount 
of  light  at  the  surface  of  a  neavenly  body,  however,  tne  quan- 
tity we  receive  from  it  would  not  (at  least  yet)  be  any  indi- 
cation whatever;  and  for  the  same  reason  that  the  amount  of 
heal  we  receive  from  it  is  no  indication  of  its  actual  heat. 
The  effect  of  the  solar  light  rays  as  well  as  the  amount  or 
solar  heat  would  be  greater  from  a  zenith  Sun;  but  the  same 
rate  of  diminution  towards  the  edges  of  the  solar  connexion 
would  quite  probably  not  apply  to  light  as  to  heat.  Different 
altitudes  of  the  Sun  do  not  appear  to  cause  the  same  varia- 
tions in  the  solar  light  as  in  solar  heat.,  Our  winter  days 
are  about  as  bright  as  our  summer  days,  though  the  latter 
are  much  the  colder;  and  similarly  there  seems  to  be  nearly 
as  intense  a  degree  of  daylight  in  the  middle  of  the  forenoon 
as  at  mid-day,  although  the  latter  is  usually  by  far  the  warm- 
er. Also  there'  are  times  when  clouds  entirely  cut  off  direct 
sunlight  for  days,  during  which  the  amount  of  daylight  is  not 
proportionately  diminished.  Our  atmosphere  evidently  mul- 
tiplies the  light  effects  of  the  solar  energy  to  a  much  greater 
extent  than  it  does  the  heat  effects  of  it;  and  this  greater 
multiplication  of  light  effects  in  our  atmosphere  manifestly 
causes  an  approximately  equable  light  distribution  over  the 
day  hemisphere.  But  probably  the  chief  reason  for  this  equa- 
ble distribution  of  light  is  that  the  light  rays  are  not  con- 
centrated like  the  heat  rays,  towards  the  center  of  the  solar 
(or  any)  connexion,  but  are  more  equally  distributed  through- 
out its  entire  section — are,  perhaps,  nearly  as  dense  at  the  bor- 
ders of  the  connexion  as  at  its  center.  Heat  or  tension  rays 
very  probably  vary  as  the  mass  to  which  they  extend,  because 
their  function  necessarily  requires  it.  But  the  light  rays, 
having  a  very  different  nature,  would  consequently  have  an 
entirely  different  function,  having  more  to  do  with  surface 
than  with  mass;  and  are  therefore  more  uniformly  mingled 
among  the  other  rays  throughout  the  whole  connexion. 

As  for  the  necessary  geometrical  relations  of  space,  they 
of  course  remain  wholly  unaffected  by  any  theoretic  deduc- 
tion. The  apparent  angular  size  of  a  body,  e.  g.,  would  still 


174  THE  CONNECTIVE   THEORY  [102 

be  primarily  modified  by  its  distance  from  the  observer;  but 
it  may  also  be  secondarily  modified  by  tM  quantity  or  den- 
sity of  the  light  rays  issuing  from  it  to  the  observer.  It  is 
well  known  that  none  of  the  so-called  fixed  stars  presents  any 
disc  whatever,  but  a  mere  point  of*  light.  This  may  not,  how- 
ever, be  altogether  owing  to  the  great  distance,  or  to  the 
smallness  of  these  bodies.  It  is  true  that  the  distances  of  the 
fixed  stars  are  comparatively  vast,  as  is  evidenced  by  their 
annual  parallax  (or  rather  its  absence)  as  indicated  by  the 
diameter  of  the  Earth's  orbit.  But  it  may  be  that  the  paral- 
lax is  itself  underestimated,  owing  to  our  approximately  cen- 
tral position  in  the  Sidereal  System,  and  the  absence  or  in- 
visibility of  all  bodies  beyond  its  confines. 

Our  sensations  within  terrestrial  limits  would  again  be  no 
criterion  for  the  interpretation  of  our  sensations  within  celes- 
tial limits.  Owing  to  the  approximate  constancy  and  uniform- 
ity of  the  terrestrial  connective  atmosphere,  the  law  of  in- 
verse squares,  with  reference  to  light  upon  the  Earth's  sur- 
face, holds,  at  least  in  most  cases,  with  a  tolerable  degree 
of  exactness; — in  most  cases,  and  with  a  tolerable  degree  of 
exactness,  because  in  some  cases  the  law  does  not  appear  to 
account  for  the  facts  at  all;  as  in  the  case  of  the  glimmer  of 
a  taper  being  visible  in  the  darkness  for  many  miles,  and  even 
for  a  time  apparently  diminishing  in  intensity  as  the  light  is 
approached;  and  because  in  other  cases  there  is  only  a  par- 
tial accordance,  as  in  the  case  of  an  object  appearing  only 
about  four-fifths  as  large  above  our  heads  as  on  a  level  with 
our  eyes.* 

102.  Horizontal  Enlargement  of  Visual  Objects. — This  phe- 
nomenon, in  the  case  of  heavenly  bodies,  such  as  the  Sun  and 
Moon,  has  puzzled  astronomers  and  physicists  from  the  time 
of  Alhazen,  who  observed  it  in  the  eleventh  century,  down  to 
the  present  day;  but  it  still  remains  inexplicable.  By  the  new 
theory  the  explanation  of  this  fact  would  be  simply  that  the 
horizontal  rays  of  the  connective  atmosphere  are  more  nu- 
merous at  any  time,  or  at  any  point  of  the  Earth's  surface, 

*Bcll.    Astron.,    Aprii.     1885. 


104]          COSMICAL  DISTRIBUTION  OF  HEAT  AND  LIGHT  175 

than  the  vertical  rays  are.  This  would  follow,  partly  at  least, 
from  the  overlapping  in  the  Earth's  atmosphere  of  rays  ex- 
tending in  opposite  horizontal  directions.  The  solar  rays 
would  communicate  their  light-action  directly  to  other  rays 
of  the  connective  atmosphere  which  are  parallel  with  them; 
and  thus,  in  effect,  the  density  of  the  solar  rays  would  be  in- 
creased by  these  parallel  rays  and  the  visual  effect  would 
consequently  be  enlarged,  for  the  same  reason  that  it  is  en- 
larged by  the  greater  density  of  the  rays  in  the  focus  of  a 
lens.  The  same  reasonng  also  applies  to  any  other  object  as 
well  as  to  the  Sun,  Moon,  or  stars.  The  greater  number  of 
horizontal  than  of  vertical  connexion  rays  transmitting  its 
light  causes  a  corresponding  enlargement  of  the  horizontal, 
as  compared  with  the  vertical,  object 

103  Question  Raised  by  the  New  Theory. — In  general,  as 
already  stated,  the  necessary  space  relations  mainly  govern 
the  apparent  size  of  the  heavenly  bodies  as  viewed  from  any 
particular  one.  Thus  we  know  that  the  Sun,  Moon,  and  plan- 
ets are  apparently  smaller  at  their  greater  than  at  their 
smaller  distances  from  us.  But  the  question  raised  by  the 
new  theory  is  this:  Does  the  light  transmitted  to  us  by  all 
classes  of  heavenly  bodies  indicate  their  real  relative  dimen- 
sions, or  their  real  relative  distances  as  determined  from 
their  apparent  dimensions?  If  Jupiter  and  an  equal  volume 
from  the  Sun  and  another  equal  volume  from  a  fixed  star, 
each  shining  by  its  respective  light-rays,  as  we  now  see  it, 
were  all  placed  at  the  same  distance  from  the  Earth,  would 
they  appear  to  us  of  the  same  size?  Or,  if  placed  where  their 
apparent  sizes  were  equal,  would  their  distances  from  us  be 
alike?  If  the  new  theory  be  the  true  one,  it  seems  probable 
that  they  would  not.  For  the  remoter  connexions  are  sup- 
posed to  differ  very  materially  from  the  less  remote,  the  dif- 
ference varying  probably  with  the  remoteness;  and  with  such 
variation  of  the  connexion,  a  corresponding  variation  in  the 
character  and  quantity  of  light  transmissible  by  it  may  rea- 
sonably be  posited. 

104.     Dark  Transits  of  Jupiter's  Satellites. — A  fact  which 


176  THE  CONNECTIVE  THEORY  [104 

probably  lends  support  to  the  connective  theory  of  light  trans- 
mission is  furnished  by  Jupiter's  satellites.  The  third  and 
fourth  of  these  satellites,  and  especially  the  latter,  are 
frequently  seen  to  cross  the  disc  of  jthe  planet  as  dark  objects, 
although  tneir  sunny  sides  are  turned  towards  us  at  the  time. 
At  other  times,  the  satellites  are  seen  to  cross  the  planet's 
disc  as  bright  objects;  and  the  inner  satellites,  it  appears, 
nearly  always  cross  it  as  bright  objects. 

By  the  popular  theory  this  phenomenon  is  explained  as 
follows :  "The  perpetual  whiteness  of  the  second  satellite, 
and  the  darkened  tints  of  the  others  during  transit  (not  to 
sny  in  explanation  of  the  casual  appearances  strange  and  un- 
usual reported  at  other  times)  is  due  to  differences  in  their 
relative  albedo,  as  compared  with  that  of  Jupiter."  And  al- 
bedo is  defined  as  the  "relative  capacity  for  reflection  of  d.t- 
fused  light  from  equal  areas."* 

As  the  fourth  and  third  satellites  from  the  planet  arc- 
sometimes  bright  and  sometimes  dark  as  they  pass  over  the 
planet's  disc,  it  is  assumed  that  the  sides  of  them  presented 
to  us  in  the  latter  case  have  a  much  greater  capacity  for  re- 
flecting the  sunlight  than  the  other  sides.  This  explanation 
fceems  plausible,  and  it  may  be  the  correct  one.  It  is  liable 
to  some  objections,  however,  which  seem  to  make  it  rather 
doubtful.  It  is  shown  that  the  albedo  of  the  edges  of  Jupiter  s 
disc  is  much  smaller  than  that  of  its  center.  In  consequence 
of  this,  the  first,  third,  and  fourth  satellites  some  times  ap- 
pear bright  on  the  edges  of  the  disc  and  dark  on  its  center, 
while  in  every  transit  the  second  satellite  is  always  bright. 
Now  one  objection  to  this  is  that  if  the  difference  of  albedo  at 
the  edges  and  at  the  center  of  the  planetary  disc  be  such  as 
to  cause  any  body  to  appear  bright  on  the  former  and  dark 
on  the  latter,  it  ought  to  cause  some  such  effect  during  the 
transit  of  every  body;  which,  however,  we  have  in  any  degree 
failed  to  observe  in  every  transit  of  the  second  satellite,  and 
in  many  transits  of  the  first  and  third.  It  would  seem  also 

"Edmund  J.  Spitta,  Monthly  Notices  R.  A.  S..  48,  No  1,  Nov  1887, 
V.  32. 


104]          COSMICAL  DISTRIBUTION  OF  HEAT  AND  LIGHT  177 

that  if  the  albedo  of  one  side  of  a  satellite,  the  third,  e.  g.,  is 
so  small  as  to  appears  black  on  the  planetary  disc,  and  that 
of  the  other  side  so  great  as  to  appear  bright  on  that  disc 
(Miraldi  observed  this  satellite  in  transit  as  a  dark  spot,  April 
4,  1707,  and  as  a  white  spot  during  the  next  transit,  April  11) 
the  black  and  the  white  transits  ought  to  occur  with  about 
equal  frequency;  which  again  is  not  the  case,  as  the  dark 
transits  of  some  satellites  appear  to  be  much  less  frequent 
than  the  bright  ones.  And  still  another  objection  seems  to 
be  that  the  albedo  of  any  of  the  satellites  should  at  any  time 
be  so  much  greater  than  that  of  the  planet  as  to  cause  the  for- 
mer to  appear  white  upon  the  latter.  The  edges  of  the  sat- 
ellites' discs  should,  of  course,  have  a  smaller  albedo  than 
their  centers,  similarly  to  the  planet's  disc.  Yet  these  edges 
or  the  satellites'  discs  appear  whiter  than  the  center  of  the 
planetary  disc  upon  which  they  pass,  which,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  seems  to  contradict  the  actual  measurements  of  these 
relative  values  of  the  albedos  which  would  reasonably  be  ex- 
pected under  the  circumstances. 

The  following  explanation  of  these  facts  is  suggested  by 
the  new  theory.  The  third  and  fourth  satellites  have  the  planes 
of  their  orbits  inclined  to  the  plane  of  the  planet's  orbit.  This 
circumstance,  together  with  greater  distance  from  the  planet, 
permits  them  occasionally  to  pass  outside  of  the  planet's  con- 
nexion with  the  Sun  as  they  revolve  in  their  own  proper  or- 
bits; at  which  time  they  appear  to  us  as  dark  objects  upon  the 
planet's  disc.  If  Jupiter  and  the  Earth  revolved  round  the 
Sun  in  the  same  orbit-plane,  obviously  it  would  be  impossible 
for  us  to  see  any  of  Jupiter's  satellites  pass  across  that  plan- 
et's disc  outside  of  the  planet's  connexion  with  the  Sun,  ex- 
cept for  a  few  moments  on  the  eastern  or  western  side  of  the 
connexion  when  Jupiter  was  near  quadrature.  But  .the  plane 
of  Jupiter's  orbit  is  somewhat  tilted  to  that  of  the  Earth,  so 
that  the  latter  when  about  in  conjunction  with  the  former  is 
nearly  always  either  above  or  below  Jupiter's  connexion. 
Therefore,  when  the  Earth  and  a  satellite  are  both  upon  the 
upper  or  the  lower  side  of  that  connexion,  it  is  quite  possible 


178  THE  CONNECTIVE  THEORY  [105 

that  the  three  bodies  would  be  in  a  straight  line,  at  which 
time  the  satellite  would  appear  as  a  dark  spot  upon  the  plan- 
et's disc.  At  other  times  the  satellite  would  pass  through  the 
planet's  connexion,  and  receiving  its  full  effect  of  light  and 
heat  together  with  its  own,  it  would  appear  about  of  the  same, 
or  even  greater,  brightness  than  that  of  the  planet.  The 
third  satellite,  being  less  distant,  and  its  orbit  less  inclined, 
would  pass  outside  of  the  planet's  connexion  at  rarer  inter- 
vals; and  the  second  and  first  satellites  not  at  all  for  the 
same  reasons. 

According  to  this  view,  each  of  the  satellites  would  appear 
black  upon  the  planet's  disc,  except  when  it  passed  through 
the  planetary  connexion  during  the  transit;  and  the  peculiar 
grayish  or  ashen  hue  frequently  observed  would  be  owing  to 
the  passage  of  the  satellites  through,  or  partially  through, 
the  edges  of  the  connexion.  This  appearance  in  the  case  of 
the  first  satellite,  whose  inclination  is  so  small  that  it  would 
about  always  pass  through  the  center  of  the  planetary  con- 
nexion during  its  front  transit  may  possibly  be  owing  to  its 
being  viewed  when  the  Earth  and  Jupiter  are  separated  by 
a  considerable  heliocentric  angle,  so  that  it  would  pass  over 
a  portion  of  the  planetary  disc  after  it  had  passed  through, 
or  before  it  entered,  the  main  part  of  the  planetary  connexion. 

105.  Sunlight  and  Earthlight  on  the  Moon. — The  illumina- 
tion of  the  Moon's  surface  next  to  the  Sun  is  not  necessarily 
opposed  to  this  view.  Jupiter's  satellites  invariably  appear 
bright  to  us  when  not  crossing  behind,  or  in  front  of,  the 
planet's  disc;  and  this  brightness  can  not  always  be  due  to 
the  primary  light  of  the  planet.  These  satellites,  therefore, 
appear  bright  by  the  Sun's  secondary  light  just  as  in  the  case 
of  the  Moon.  And  we  appear  to  have  no  evidence  whatever 
that,  to  an  observer  on  Venus,  the  Moon  in  its  occasional 
transit  across  the  Earth's  disc  does  not  appear  at  times  as  a 
dark  object,  and  at  others  as  a  bright  object,  as  it  passed  re- 
spectively to  one  side  of,  or  through,  the  Earth's  solar  con- 
nexion; just  in  the  same  manner  and  for  the  same  reasons 
that  Jupiter's  satellites  appear  so  to  us.  The  solar  illumination 


105]          COSMICAL  DISTRIBUTION  OF  HEAT  AND  LIGHT  179 

of  the  Moon  does  not  appear  to  be  very  intense.  There  is,  in 
fact,  no  reason  for  believing  that  the  solar  illumination  of  the 
Earth  would  not  quite  probably  appear  more  intense  from  the 
Moon  than  that  of  the  latter  does  to  us;  and  a  slight  defi- 
ciency of  solar  light  upon  one  body  as  compared  with  another 
over  whose  disc  it  was  passing  would  cause  the  former  to 
appear  comparatively  dark.  Now,  besides  being  illuminated 
by  direct  sunlight  (and  possibly  also  by  its  own  inherent 
light),  the  Moon  would  also  be  illuminated  by  earthlight. 
This  earthlight  would  probably  at  the  present  time  consist 
chiefly  of  reflected  sunlight.  But  it  may  also  consist  partly 
of  light  inherent  in  the  Earth  itself.  We  know  as  little  of  the 
ultimate  riature  and  transformations  of  light  as  we  do  of  heat. 
As  the  latter  may  be  manifested  in  the  transformation  of  en- 
ergies which  are  not  heat,  so  the  former  may  possibly  be  man- 
ifested in  the  transformation  of  energies  which  are  not  light. 
It  seems  not  impossible,  therefore,  that  along  with  the  toler- 
ably certain  component  of  the  earthlight  upon  the  Moon  (i.  e., 
the  reflected  sunlight),  there  may  also  co-exist  a  component 
consisting  of  a  light  originating  on  the  Earth.  The  light  re- 
flected from  the  Earth  to  the  Moon  should  obviously  be  much 
greater  than  the  light  reflected  from  the  Moon  to  the  Earth. 
Even  by  the  current  theory  the  former  should  be  at  least 
twelve  times  the  latter.  Yet,  while  we  know  that  the  Earth 
is  very  considerably  illuminated  by  moonlight,  the  Moon  at 
the  most  favorable  conjuncture,  as  at  or  near  new  Moon,  is 
little  more  than  barely  visible  to  us  by  earthlight.  In  fact 
Mr.  Frank  W.  Very 

"finally  concludes  that  in  round  numbers  the  earth  shine 
(on  the  Moon)  at  new  moon  has  an  intrinsic  brightness  of 
about  1/1600  of  moon  light  of  average  quality,  such  as  is  re- 
ceived shortly  before  first  quarter."* 

This  is  just  about  1/20,000  as  much  as  it  should  be,  supposing 
the  albedo  of  the  Earth  and  of  the  Moon  to  be  equal.  And 
there  certainly  appears  no  reason  to  think  that  the  albedo  of 
the  Earth,  which  is  mostly  covered  with  clouds,  water,  or 

*Astron.    Nach.,    No.    4696. 


180  THE   CONNECTIVE  THEORY  [105 

snow,  should  be  less  than  that  of  the  brown  rocks  or  soil  of 
the  Moon's  surface;  so  that,  by  the  current  theory,  this  com- 
parative dimness  of  the  earthshine  upon  the  Moon  remain;1 
unexplained. 

By  the  new  theory  this  fact  would  be  explained  by  the 
structure  of  the  Moon's  primary  connexion.  It  has  already 
been  intimated  that  heat  would  travel  chieftly  in  the  primary 
connexions,  and  almost  wholly  in  a  direction  from  the  primary 
to  the  derived  body.  One  reason  for  this  is  that  the  primary 
body  was  in  a  state  of  intensely  heated  vapor  while  yet  the 
derived  body  was  a  ring  of  highly  developed  crust  material; 
so  that  heat  naturally  traveled  from  the  hotter  to  the  colder 
body,  and,  once  started  that  way,  would  so  continue.  Light, 
however,  embraces  a  higher  range  of  phenomena;  so  that  one 
kind  of  light  might  be  transmitted  by  a  connexion  in  one  di- 
rection, while  a  different  kind  or  degree  of  light  might  be 
transmitted  by  it  at  the  same  time  in  the  opposite  direction. 
But  it  seems  very  difficult  to  conceive  that  the  same  connec- 
tive substance  would  at  the  same  time  transmit  the  same  kind 
of  light  in  opposite  directions;  for -the  reason  that  the  same 
connective  lines  or  rays  would  be  required  for  such  trans- 
mission; and  if  these  rays  transmitted  the  light  in  one  di 
rection,  it  appears  impossible  that  they  could  at  the  same 
time  transmit  that  light  in  an  opposite  direction  also.  Now 
it  is  only  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  Moon's  primary  con- 
nexion is  continually  transmitting  light  (and  probably  heat 
also)  from  the  Earth  towards  the  Moon;  and,  for  the  reason 
just  stated,  little  or  none  of  this  light  (and  heat)  could  be 
transmitted  back  again  to  the  Earth.  While  at  the  same  time 
the  solar  light  falling  on  the  Moon,  being  supposably  of  a 
different  kind,  is  readily  transmitted  Earthwards  by  that  con- 
nexion. There  is  no  evidence  whatever  by  the  popular  theory 
that  the  solar  light  reflected  from  the  Moon  would  be  pre- 
cisely similar  to  the  light  reflected  from  the  Earth.  And  by 
the  new  theory  we  have  good  grounds  for  believing  that  the 
solar  light  transmitted  by  the  secondary  connexion  of  th? 
Moon  is  different  both  in  quantity  and  kind  from  the  solar 


107]          COSMICAL  DISTRIBUTION  OF  HEAT  AND  LIGHT  181 

light  transmited  by  the  primary  connexion  of  the  Earth. 
Therefore,  we  seem  to  be  quite  justified  in  assuming  that, 
of  the  light  transmitted  from  the  Earth  to  the  Moon,  very 
little,  or  none  whatever,  would  be  transmited  in  a  backward 
direction;  which  obviously  explain  the  faint  visibility  of  "the 
old  Moon  in  the  new  Moon's  arms." 

106.  The  Moon's  Sunlight  on  the  Earth. — At  the  time  of  a 
lunar  eclipse,  the  lunar  connexion  with  the  Sun  falls  upon  the 
Earth,  which  thus  receives  for  the  time  the  full  benefit  of  the 
heat  and  light  of  this  connexion,  in  addition  to  that  of  its  own. 
As  already  intimated,  the  ratio  or  relation  .which  the  one  con- 
nexion bears  to  the  other  is  not  determined.  But,  if  upon  no 
other  consideration  than  that  of  mass,  the  Moon's  solar  con- 
nexion would  be  only  about  one-eightieth  of  the  Earth's;  and, 
by  virtue  of  its  secondary  character,  it  would  probably  be 
much  less  than  this.  The  additional  amount  of  light  and  heat 
which  at  that  time  would  be  transmited  to  us  would  there- 
fore be  scarcely  perceptible  unless  special  pains  were  directed 
to  determine  it.  And  it  is  from  such  determination  that  the 
quantitive  and  qualitative  relations  of  the  solar  connexions  of 
the  two  bodies  will,  in  all  probability,  eventually  be  ascer- 
tained. 

If  only  the  Earth  could  eclipse  an  outer  planet,  we  would 
then,  by  the  new  theory,  receive  about  double  the  ordinary 
solar  heat  and  light.  Such  an  event  would  last  for  a  few 
hours;  but  it  would  be  difficult  to  predict,  and  might  easily 
pass  unobserved  if  not  specially  looked  for. 

107.  The  'Aberration  of  Light. — In  a  Report  to  the  British 
Association,  on  "Optical  Theories",  by  R.  T.  Glazebrook,  it  is 
stated  that  Stokes 

"has  given  us  an  explanation  of  aberration  by  showing 
that  we  may  suppose  the  Earth  to  move  through  space  carry- 
ing the  ether  with  it,  the  ether  at  some  distance  from  it  being 
at  rest;  provided  that  the  motion  thus  produced  in  the  ether 
be  irrotational,  all  the  known  phenomena  of  aberration  will 
follow."* 

*Nature,    33,    19. 


182  THE  CONNECTIVE  THEORY  [107 

This,  however,  would  hardly  be  the  case  according  to  the  cur- 
rent theory,  for  if  the  ether  for  a  certain  distance  should  be 
carried  along  with  the  Earth  in  its  orbit,  it  would  hardly  tail 
also  to  be  carried  along  with  the  Earth  in  its  axial  rotation. 
But  by  the  new  theory  it  is  just  wriat  would  actually  happen. 
The  planetary  connexions  and  the  ethereal  atmosphere  upon 
the  Earth  are  of  course  carried  along  by  that  body  in  its  an- 
nual revolution,  while  they  in  no  degree  rotate  with  it  about 
its  axis,  but  are  relatively  fixed  while  the  Earth  rotates  with- 
in them.  And  the  ethereal  interplanetary  connexions  sub- 
tending between  other  heavenly  bodies,  through  which  the 
Earh  passes  in  its  annual  motion,  would  of  course  be  at  rest 
^relatively  to  that  motion. 


CHAPTER  VII 


ANOMALIES  OF  THE  SOLAR  SYSTEM 


We  must  at  once  put  the  comets  out  of  view.  .  .  .  We 
do  not  know  whether  the  comets  are  really  indigenous  to  the 
solar  system  or  whether  they  may  not  be  merely  imported 
into  the  system  from  the  depths  of  space. — R.  S.  BALL. 

The  tails  of  comets,  however  they  may  be  viewed,  wheth- 
er as  regards  their  immense  length,  both  in  degrees  and  in 
miles,  the  separation  of  some  into  two  or  more  parts  in  the 
direction  of  their  lengths,  their  great  breadth  and  curvature, 
the  rapidity  of  their  formation,  their  deviation  from  the  line 
of  the  radius  vector,  frequent  formation  of  a  tail  towards  the 
sun,  the  black  stripe  through  the  center  of  some,  and  its 
absence  in  others,  their  chemical  composition,  and,  above  all, 
the  source  and  nature  of  the  force  that  throws  back  from  the 
sunny  side  of  the  coma  a  train  of  unimagined  extent — in  one 
instance  200,000,000  miles  in  length  and  15,000,000  in  breadth — 
are  among  the  most  inscrutable  of  the  marvels  which  the  vis- 
ible universe  presents  for  our  contemplation  and  study.  No 
explanation  has  ever  been  propounded  that  will  satisfactorily 
account  for  a  single  one  of  these  phenomena. 

—PROF.  LEWIS  SWIFT. 

Perhaps  there  is  no  object  upon  which  it  is  easier  to  ex- 
ercise the  imigination  than  upon  Saturn.  And  there  is  prob- 
ably no  orb  in  reference  to  which  more  errors  in  detail  have 
been  made.  .  .  .  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  an  extremely 
difficult  point  to  distinguish  between  real  and  imaginative 
features  on  Saturn.  The  tremblings  of  the  image,  its  faint- 
ness  under  high  power,  or  its  smallness  under  low  power, 
encourage  much  fictitious  detail  which  every  observer  cannot 
regard  as  illusory.  .  .  .  Enke's  division  in  the  outer  ring- 
is  a  doubtful,  or  probably  a  very  variable  feature,  which  at 
certain  times  appears  to  be  missing  altogether. 

— W.  F.  DENNING. 

108.  The  Saturn iah  Ring. — There  are  many  curious  and 
hitherto  inexplicable  anomalies  in  the  Solar  System  which 
furnish  the  strongest  possible  corroborative  evidence  of  the 
new  views  here  advanced.  The  planet  Saturn  and  its  ring- 
are  very  remarkable  instances,  the  evidence  of  which  alone 


184  THE  CONNECTIVE  THEORY  [108 

is  almost  sufficient  to  establish  the  truth  of  the  new  theory. 
There  is,  properly  speaking,  no  explanation  of  the  curious  phe- 
nomenon of  Saturn's  ring  by  the  current  theory.  There  are 
quite  a  number  of  alleged  explanations,  none  of  which,  how- 
ever, are  tenable.  The  most  common  view  is  that  the  ring  is 
composed  of  discrete  particles  of  dust  or  tenuous  vapor,  sim- 
ilar to  the  substance  of  a  comet's  tail  or  of  the  zodiacal  light. 
This  view  is  now  accepted  by  the  highest  living  authorities 
on  the  subject.  The  planet  itself,  on  the  other  hand,  is  sup- 
posed to  be  an  ice-covered  solid  body.*  How  the  planet  be- 
came solidified  out  of  the  original  vapors  while  the  ring, 
which  had,  to  say  the  least,  an  equal  chance  to  solidify,  yet 
remains  almost  in  the  original  state,  is  of  course  wholly 
inexplicable. 

Prof.  Keelerf  by  photographing  the  spectrum  of  Saturn's 
ring  and  noting  the  relative  displacements  of  the  spectral 
lines,  has  obtained,  according  to  Doppler's  principle,  what  he 
regarded  as  proof  that  the  outer  portion  of  the  ring  revolves 
more  slowly  than  the  inner  portion;  which  appears  to  con- 
firm the  meteoric  hypothesis  of  the  ring's  constitution  put 
forth  by  Maxwell  in  1856.  Prof.  Keeler's  work  has  been  re- 
peated and  corroborated  by  Dr.  W.  W.  Campbell  of  Lick 
Observatory.:}: 

Doppler's  principle  is  now  generally  accepted  as  authori- 
tative in  such  cases,  and  there  is  not  much  room  for  doubt  that 
in  some  cases  it  leads  to  correct  results.  But  the  displace- 
ments of  the  spectral  lines  of  a  body  owing  to  its  recession 
or  approach — upon  which  the  principle  depends — are  extreme- 
ly small  in  nearly  all  cases  and  requires  very  accurate  com- 
parison with  the  same  spectral  lines  of  a  stationary  body. 

In  Newcomb's  Astronomy,  (ed.  1893),  the  diameter  of  the 
planet  Saturn  is  given  as  70,500  miles,  the  distance  of  the 
inner  edge  of  tlyi  bright  ring  from  the  planet's  center,  58,280 

*The  ultra- Jovian  planets  "are  globes  of  solid  ice,  inclosing  cores  of 
rocky  material  and  wrapped  in  vapor-laden  atmospheres.'1  Prof.  A. 
Winchell,  World-Life,  p.  473. 

tAstrophysical  Journal,  May  1895,  p.  416. 
lAstrophysical  Journal,  Aug.  1895,  p.  127. 


108]  ANOMALIES  OF  THE   SOLAR   SYSTEM  185 

miles,  that  of  the  outer  edge,  83,557  miles,  and  the  gravity-fall 
at  the  planet's  surface  in  one  second,  19  feet.  Now,  if  it  be 
granted  that  the  ring  consists  of  a  swarm  of  meteorites,  it  is 
found  from  the  foregoing  data  that,  according  to  the  variation 
of  gravtiy-fall  inversely  as  the  square  of  the  distance,  a  veloc- 
ity of  12.55  miles  per  second  would  be  required  to  balance 
the  gravityrfall  at  the  inner  edge  of  the  ring,  and  a  velocity 
of  10.4  miles  per  second  to  balance  the  gravity-fall  at  the  outer 
edge  of  the  ring;  giving  a  velocity-difference  of  2.15  miles 
per  second  at  the  inner  and  outer  edges  of  the  ring.  Now 
this  difference  is  alleged  to  be  detected  by  the  spectroscope 
in  the  v/idth  of  the  ring,  or  a  space  of  less  than  six  seconds 
of  arc;  and  moreover,  since  this  difference  can  only  be  ob- 
served when  the  plane  of  the  ring  is  tilted  considerably  to 
the  line  of  sight,  the  real  velocity-difference  with  respect  to 
our  instruments  would,  for  this  reason,  be  considerably  less 
than  two  miles,  probably  about  one  and  a  half  miles,  and  the 
conditions  of  observation  extremely  difficult  besides. 

When  has  so  small  a  velocity-difference  been  spectroscop- 
ically  observed  before  under  similar  circumstances?  The 
nearest  approach  to  it  appears  to  be  the  velocity  of  the  Sun's 
rotation,  attempts  at  the  Spectroscopic  determination  of  which 
by  vailous  observers  have  recently  been  made,  the  results 
varying  around  two  kilometres,  or  about  one  and  one-fourth 
mile  per  second  at  the  equator.  This  makes  a  velocity-differ- 
ence of  about  two  and  a  half  miles  between  the  opposite  edges 
or  the  Sun's  disc,  which,  by  using  a  very  high  dispersion  spec- 
troscope, gives  a  total  line  displacement  of  only  one-tenth  of 
a  millimetre,  or  about  1/250  inch.  And  though  the  observa- 
tions were  made  under  the  most  favorable  circumstances,  and 
the  velocity-difference  much  larger  than  in  the  case  of  Sat- 
urn's ring,  the  variations  in  the  results,  both  by  the  different 
observers  and  by  the  lines  of  different  substances,  were  such 
that  the  question  is  still  left  with  six  different  institutions 
for  settlement.*  The  following  from  an  excellent  authority 
refers  to  the  same  difficulties: 

*See   Publication  2106,    Smithsonian  Institution,    p.   260. 


186  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY 

"It  may  be  worth  while  to  indicate  the  accuracy  necessary 
in  such  measurements.  The  velocity  of  rotation  of  the  sun's 
equator  is  approximately  2km.  per  second,  while  the  velocity 
of  light  is  300,000  km.  per  second.  According  to  Doppler's 
principle,  the  corresponding  change  in  wavelength  should  be 
1  :  150,000 — a  quantity  too  small*  to  be  'resolved'  by  any 
prism  or  grating  then  in  existence.  But  by  a  sufficient  num- 
ber of  careful  micrometer  measurements  of  the  position  of 
the  middle  of  a  given  spectral  line,  the  mean  value  of  two 
such  sets  of  measurements  would  show  the  required  shift.  It 
is  clear,  however,  that  if  such  radial  velocities  are  to  be  de- 
termined with  any  considerable  degree  of  accuracy,  nothing 
short  of  the  highest  resolving  power  of  the  most  powerful 
gratings  should  be  employed."* 

Now  if  such  observers  as  Huggins  and  Vogel  were  unable  to 
determine  spectroscopically  the  velocity-difference  of  the 
Sun's  rotation  in  opposite  directions,  it  may  easily  be  im- 
agined how  much  more  difficult  and  uncertain  would  be  the 
determination  of  the  smaller  velocity-difference  of  the  inner 
and  outer  edges  of  Saturn's  ring  under  the  far  more  difficult 
circumstances  of  observation.  (See  W.  F.  Denning's  quota- 
tion under  heading  of  this  chapter). 

Does  it  not  seem  barely  possible  that  this  current  view  of 
the  constitution  of  the  Saturnian  ring  is  somewhat  of  the  na- 
ture of  reasoning  in  a  circle,  or  of  a  leading  question  suggest- 
ing its  own  answer?  According  to  the  theory  of  gravitation, 
the  ring  could  not  possibly  revolve  as  a  solid  whole,  if  com- 
posed of  ordinary  crust  material.  This  suggested  the  meteor- 
itic  hypothesis  of  its  constitution,  which  appears  to  have  no 
other  evidence  or  reason  whatever  in  its  favor;  after  which 
the  theory  of  gravitation  necessitated  variable  velocity,  and — 
has  it  not  occured  before? — unconscious  bias  towards  a  uni- 
versally accepted  theory  molded  doubtful  instrumental  ob- 
servations accordingly. 

We  know  that  several  other  causes  besides  difference  of 
velocity  in  the  line  of  sight  displaces  spectral  lines,  and  we 
know  moreover  that  in  many  such  cases  some  lines  are  dis- 
placed more  than  others;  for  which  reasons  some  authorities 
reject  Doppler's  principle  as  untrustworthy.  (See  Nature, 

*Dr.   A.   A.   Michelson,  Nature,   88,   363. 


108]  ANOMALIES  OF  THE   SOLAR   SYSTEM  187 

79,431).  There  are  others  who  have  investigated  this  question 
spectroscopically,  and  who  differ  from  Keeler,  not  considering 
this  kind  of  evidence  as  a  proof  of  the  meteoritic  nature  of 
the  ring.*  "Sir  W.  Herschel  concluded  that  the  matter  of  the 
ring  is  no  less  solid  than  that  of  Saturn  as  it  casts  a  strong 
shadow  upon  the  planet.  The  light  of  the  ring  is  generally 
brighter  than  that  of  the  planet."  f  A.  Mascari  observed  per- 
manent bright  spots  on  the  ring  July  25  to  August  6,  1895, $ 
which  is  not  easy  to  explain  on  the  meteoritic  theory.  Bessel 
determined  the  mass  of  the  ring  as  1/118  of  that  of  the  planet, 
while  its  volume,  adopting  Bond's  value  of  40  miles  for  its 
thickness,  is  only  1/400  of  the  planet's  volume.  Prof.  Asaph 
Hall  reduced  Bessel's  value  to  1/1180;  while  the  mass  per- 
missible by  Maxwell's  meteoritic  hypothesis  is  only  1/120,000 
of  the  planet's  mass.§ 

But  by  far  the  strongest  reason  for  believing  that  the  ring 
is  solid  is  its  extreme  thinness,  as  compared  with  its  width, 
and  the  clear  definition  of  its  edges  and  of  its  shadow  upon 
the  planet.  It  is  wholly  inexplicable  and  inconceivable  that  a 
swarm  of  meteorites  could  dispose  themselves  in  a  plane  ring 
of  about  170,000  miles  diameter,  30,000  miles  width,  and  of  a 
uniform  thickness  of  only  1/750  part  of  its  width.  The  most 
natural  form  of  a  ring  composed  of  a  loose  swarm  of  meteor- 
itic bodies  would  seem  to  be  one  of  an  approximately  cir- 
cular  section,  thinning  in  density  towards  the  outside  surface, 
and  therefore  of  blurred  or  fading  definition  at  the  edges. 
There  is  no  conceivable  agency  which  would  compress  a  me- 
teoritic swarm  into  a  pancake  form  of  such  extreme  thinness 
relative  to  width  and  of  such  perfect  definition;  just  as  if  it 
were  pressed  between  immense  rollers.  The  only  rational 
view  seems  to  be  that  the  ring  is  solid  and  that  it  had  its  ori- 
gin in  the  manner  indicated  by  the  new  theory.  Its  width 
would  thus  be  determined  by  the  quadrant  of  the  planet's  sur- 

*M.    H.    Deslandres,    Nature,    52,    144. 

fProf.  R.  A.  Proctor,  Ency.  Brit.,  9th  ed.,  11,  811. 

JAstron.  Nach.,  3318. 

§Nature,  33,  303. 


188  THE  CONNECTIVE  THEORY  [108 

face  and  its  thickness  by  double  that  of  the  original  crust; 
both  of  which,  however,  would  now  be  less  than  at  first  owing 
to  the  expansion  which  the  ring  has  already  undergone. 

Some  authorities  are  agreed  that  the  ring  is  getting  con- 
tinually smaller  in  diameter,  and  will  continue  to  grow  in- 
wards ;  *  while  others  hold  that  the  diameter  of  the  ring-sys- 
tem is  continually  increasing  at  the  rate  of  about  29  miles 
annually  from  the  time  of  Huyghens,.f  Prof.  C.  A.  Young 
states  that  "the  most  recent  micrometric  measures  have  failed 
to  confirm  Struve's  suspicion  that  the  rings  are  contracting 
on  the  planet." 

The  ring  is,  in  all  probability,  continually  receding  from 
the  planet,  therefore  expanding  in  diameter;  and,  being  thus 
subjected  to  an  increasing  centrifugal  strain,  it  will  yield 
eventually  at  some  point  and  collapse  into  a  satellite.  There 
is  little  further  to  .add  to  this  explanation.  Regarding  the 
real  attraction  of  the  planet  upon  the  ring  by  the  new  theory, 
it  may  be  stated  that  it  would  supposably  be  very  small.  The 
crust  of  the  planet  as  it  separated  into  its  present  ring-form 
would  carry  with  it  a  portion  of  the  structurally  developed 
connective  atmosphere  in  which  the  function  of  attraction 
lies;  the  remainder  of  which  on  the  planet's  surface  would 
supposably  conform  itself  structurally,  and  therefore  function- 
ally with  respect  to  gravitation,  to  the  different  conditions 
supervening  there  after  the  crust's  removal  (see  Art.  92  b). 
The  same  change  in  the  connective  atmosphere  of  the  ring 
would  take  place  during  its  precipitation  into  the  spherical 
form.  Notwithstanding  the  general  belief  that  the  ring  is 
multiple,  or  made  up  of  two  or  three  separate  rings,  there  is 
no  real  evidence  whatever  that  such  is  the  case.  There  are 
indeed  striations  and  bands  of  different  colors ;  but  this  would 
quite  supposably  arise  from  the  manner  in  which  the  ring  is 
here  conceived  to  have  been  derived,  without  involving  any 
actual  breach  of  continuity.  Mr.  Asaph  Hall  of  Washington 

*A.  Winchell,  Woild-Ljfe,  p.  483;  Otto  Struve,  Astron.  Nach.,  No. 
2948. 

fRay's  Elements  of  Astronomy. 


108]  ANOMALIES  OF   THE   SOLAR   SYSTEM  189 

Observatory  has  especially  examined  the  planet  Saturn  and. 
its  ring  during  the  fourteen  years  1875-89.  Following  are  the 
results  of  his  observations  so  far  as  they  relate  to  this  point: 

"Although  a  careful  examination  was  made  to  find  if  a  notch 
could  be  seen  in  the  outline  of  the  shadow  of  the  ball  upon 
the  ring,  no  such  phenomenon  was  recorded.  Of  the  prin- 
cipal rings,  no  division  was  recorded  in  the  inner  ring.  The 
Cassini  division  gave  the  impression  'of  not  being  a  complete 
separation,  or  that  small  particles  of  matter  remain  in  this 
partly  dark  space.'  The  Encke  division  of  the  outer  ring, 
although  specially  looked  for,  could  not  be  definitely  stated 
as  a  'real  and -permanent  division,'  although  a  slight  marking 
was  seen  at  times."* 

The  transparent  inner  portion  of  the  ring  (the  crape  ring), 
which  we  observe  to  be  precisely  analogous  in  substance  to 
the  coronal  rays,  the  zodiacal  light,  and  the  tails  of  comets, 
is,  by  the  new  theory,  nothing  else  than  the  ring's  primary 
connexion  with  the  planet,  mixed,  perhaps,  near  the  ring,  with 
some  aqueous  and  other  vapors.  The  main  body  of  the  ring 
is  certainly  solid  enough  to  cast  an  unbroken  shadow  upon 
the  planet,  and  also  to  receive  the  shadow  of  the  latter  upon 
the  side  farthest  from  the  Sun.  The  outline  of  this  latter 
shadow,  minutely  scrutinized  with  powerful  telescopes,  has 
led  astronomers  to  believe  that  the  outer  edge  of  the  ring  is 
rounded  in  form;  precisely  as  the  new  theory  would  lead  us 
to  expect.  Changes  appear  to  be  taking  place  in  the  ring's 
sructure,  owing,  no  doubt,  to  its  continual  expansion.  M. 
Stuyvaert  of  the  Royal  Observatory,  Brussels,  from  drawings 
made  February  8  and  15,  1887,  and  presented  to  the  Royal  Bel- 
gian Academy,  shows  that  the  black  band  corresponding  to 
the  Cassinian  division,  is  encroaching  on  the  outer  portion 
of  the  ring,  in  a  remarkable  series  of  indentations.  Another 
portion  is  broken  up  into  a  series  of  bright  white  spots,  by  a 
number  of  dusky  patches.  Also  there  were  observed  three  or 
four  "large  re-entering  angles,  like  the  teeth  of  a  saw",  on  the 
inner  margin.  These  observed  changes  have  led  to  the  belief 
that  the  matter  composing  the  ring  is  at  present  much  less 
evenly  distributed  than  usual.  And,  in  fact,  we  really  know 

*Nature,  43,   65. 


190  THE   CONNECTIVE  THEORY  [109 

not  at  what  moment  a  serious  break  may  occur  which  would 
precipitate  the  awful  catastrophe  terminating  the  existence  of 
the  ring  as  such,  and  transforming  it  into  another  Saturnian 
satellite. 

109.  Comets. — If  the  privilege  of  witnessing  this  grand 
catastrophe — the  crashing  together  of  billions  upon  billions  of 
cubic  miles  of  solid  rock  and  earth,  separated  by  about  170,- 
000  miles,  or  about  three-fourths  the  distance  of  the  Moon 
from  the  Earth — if  the  rare  privilege  of  gazing  with  our 
mortal  eyes  upon  this  convulsion  of  a  world  in  the  throes  of 
a  planetary  birth  be  granted  us,  it  may  be  that  other  bodies 
besides  the  off-spring  will  be  seen  to  engage  our  attention. 
In  the  extreme  violence  of  the  collisions,  vast  fragments 
would  probably  have  their  parental  connexions  severed,  and 
with  a  portion  of  these  severed  connexions  clinging  about 
them  as  an  infant  robe,  these  fragments  would  speed  to  distant 
worlds  and  systems  as  messengers  bearing  tidings  of  the  na- 
tivity. These,  although  apparently  wandering  in  all  direc- 
tions, yet  would  have  their  determined,  definite  courses  which 
they  must  pursue.  The  agents  determining  the  comet's 
course  would  probably  be  one  of  the  secondary  connexions 
which  yet  remain  attached  to  it.  Some  one  of  these  connex- 
ions would  lie  more  nearly  in  the  direction  of  the  comet's  orig- 
inal projection  than  the  others,  and  this  one  the  body  would 
follow.  The  leading  connexion  would  thus  become  continually 
shorter,  its  substance  accumulating  upon  the  body;  and,  ow- 
ing to  the  swift  motion  of  the  one  and  the  material  inertia 
of  the  other,  it  would  fall  behind  the  comet  and  form  the 
"tail."  This  tail  would  of  course  increase  in  magnitude,  ow- 
ing to  the  continual  accumulation  of  the  connexion  as  the 
connected  body  was  approached.  Sometimes  one  or  more 
subordinate  tails  are  observed  to  exend  from  the  body  in  dif- 
ferent directions;  but  quite  probably  these  are  only  other 
secondary  connexions  carried  by  the  comet,  and  into  which 
a  part  of  the  accumulating  connective  substance  finds  its 
way,  thus  making  them  visible  to  us.  Now  the  chances  would 
be  almost  infinity  to  one  against  the  original  projection  of  the 


109]  .        ANOMALIES  OF  THE   SOLAR  SYSTEM  191 

comet  exactly  in  the  direction  of  the  connected  body  towards 
which  the  comet  would  move.  The  direction  of  projection 
would,  in  fact,  be  more  or  less  to  one  side  or  other  of  that  body. 
The  comet,  therefore,  would  not  move  directly  towards  the 
body  approached,  and  as  it  moved  past  that  body  a  gradual 
strain  would  come  upon  the  connexion  between  the  two,  by 
means  of  which  the  former,  in  the  course  of  several  hours  or 
days,  would  be  swung  around  the  latter  until  its  motion  was 
nearly  in  line  with  some  other  connexion  which  it  carried  and 
which  it  would  afterwards  follow. 

The  substance  of  the  tail,  in  obedience  to  its  material  co- 
hesion and  momentum,  would  also  move  round  with  the  com- 
et; and  as  the  latter  was  more  directly  detained  by  the  con- 
nexion, the  former  (whose  momentum  would  be  comparative- 
ly unchecked)  would  generally  swing  round  to  the  side  far- 
thest from  tHe  other  body.  Thus  the  normal  position  of  the 
tail  would  usually  be  away  from  the  Sun  or  other  body  around 
which  the  comet  was  moving.  But  this  position  of  the  tail  is 
not  an  essential  feature  of  the  phenomenon.  In  fact,  exact 
opposition  of  the  tail  to  the  Sun  would  rarely  be  the  case. 
Indeed  one  comet  at  least  has  been  observed  whose  tail  point- 
ed almost  directly  towards  the  Sun.*  And  although  one 
prominent  authority!  says  ocmets'  tails  never  point  to  the 
Sun,  at  least  four  others  have  been  observed  to  do  so  very 
approximately,!  and  many  others  in  various  directions. 

In  this  manner  the  comet  would  recede  much  in  the  same 
way  that  it  approached;  the  connexion  with  the  first  body 
now  elongating  itself  from  the  accumulated  connective  sub- 
stance upon  the  body  of  the  comet,  just  as  the  Earth's  con- 
nexions with  the  planets  become  elongated  when  the  Earth 
recedes  from  them.  After  the  comet  rounded  this  second 
body,  it  might  return  again  to  the  first,  or  it  might,  subject 
to  the  guidance  of  still  another  secondary  connexion  which 

*Nature,    41,    255. 

tDr.  Oliver  J.  Lodge,  Pioneers  of  Science,  p.  343. 

JViz.,  1888,  c  (Nature,  40,  255);  1895,  IV  (Nature,  54,  600);  1910, 
a  (Nature,  87,  21)  ;  and  1911,  b  (Nature,  87,  257) 


192  THE   CONNECTIVE   THEORY  [109 

it  would  carry,  move  towards  a  third  body,  and  then  even 
towards  a  fourth,  coming  back  by  way  of  one  or  more  of 
these,  or  perhaps  directly  to  the  first;  or  it  may  be  that  it 
would  never  return  to  the  first,  but  would  continue  circulat- 
ing round  some  others.  In  its  wanderings  it  would  suffer 
a  continual  loss  of  motion  from  the  friction  of  the  connective 
medium  through  which  it  passes;  and  in  all  probability  a 
plunge  into  the  body  towards  which  finally  it  would  thus 
move,  is  the  ultimate  fate  which  would  terminate  its  career. 

All  the  peculiar  and  hitherto  mysterious  phenomena  of 
these  bodies  thus  fall  in  apparent  harmony  with  the  new  the- 
ory. But  in  still  further  confirmation  of  the  new  views,  it 
has  been  observed  that  the  substance  forming  the  tail  seems 
to  rise  in  a  continual  stream  from  the  side  of  the  approach- 
ing comet  nearest  to  the  Sun;  and,  after  ascending  a  certain 
distance,  apparently  sweeps  behind  the  body.  "It  flows  past 
the  nucleus",  says  Dr.  Huggins,  "on  all  sides,  still  ever  ex- 
panding and  shooting  backwards  until  a  tail  is  formed,  in  a 
direction  opposite  to  the  Sun.  This  tail  is  usually  curved, 
though  sometimes  rays  or  extra  tails  are  also  seen."  This 
curvature  of  the  tail,  regarding  which  so  many  different  the- 
ories have  been  invented,  would,  by  the  new  view,  be  owing 
simply  to  the  motion  of  the  comet  in  a  direction  different  from 
that  in  which  the  leading  connexion  lies;  the  inertia  of  the 
connective  substance  and  the  comet's  motion  giving  to  the 
connective  particles  the  observed  resultant  path.  If  the  comet 
moved  directly  towards  the  Sun,  or  exactly  in  the  direction 
in  which  the  leading  connexion  lies,  the  tail  would  suppos- 
ably  be  exactly  straight  during  the  approach  of  the  comet. 

It  has  been  supposed  by  Siemens,  Proctor,  Langley,  Huy- 
ghens,  and  others,  that  the  activity  above  noticed  on  the  side 
nearest  the  Sun  would  be  caused  by  the  extreme  solar  heat 
driving  occluded  gases  out  of  the  solid  nucleus;  and  then 
repelling  them  in  a  manner  similar  to  electric  repulsion.  But 
Prof.  Stokes  has  observed  that  this  activity  is  just  as  pro- 
nounced in  the  cases  of  comets  which  have  approached  the 
Sun  no  nearer  than  our  Earth  does,  or  not  so  near;  and  these 


110]  ANOMALIES    OF    THE    SOLAR    SYSTEM  193 

bodies,  having  no  proper  atmosphere,  and  subject,  therefore, 
according  to  Prof.  Langley  and  others,  to  a  temperature  sev- 
eral hundred  degrees  below  zero,  such  a  theory,  under  such 
circumstances,  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  tenable. 

Moreover  the  evidence  of  the  spectroscope  goes  to  show 
that  there  is  almost  an  exact  similarity  of  composition  and 
matter  in  comet's  tails,  the  coronal  streamers,  the  zodiacal 
light,  and  the  aurora  borealis.  Euler  was  led  by  observation 
to  put  forward  the  theory  "that  there  is  a  great  affinity  be- 
tween these  tails,  the  zodiacal  light,  and  the  aurora  borealis." 
And  similar  views  were  entertained  by  Angstrom,  Otto  Struve, 
and  Prof.  R.  A.  Proctor.  The  latter  believed  it  "far  from  be- 
ing unlikely  that  these  long-vexed  questions — the  nature  of 
the  aurora,  and  that  of  the  zodiacal  light,  and  that  of  comet's 
tails — will  receive  their  solution  simultaneously." 

During  the  last  appearance  of  Halley's  comet,  the  Earth 
appears  to  have  passed  through  the  tail.  This  passage  was 
due  on  May  1$,  1910,  and  at  2h  15m  a.  m.  of  that  day  two 
tails  were  seen,  one  in  the  east  and  one  in  the  west;  both 
remaining  visible  to  3h  5m  a.  m.  This  observation  was  made 
on  the  sea  near  Naples.  After  passing  through  it,  the  tail 
seemed  shorter  and  brush-,  or  aigrette-shaped  (Nature,  83, 
pp.  487,  534).  Yet  though  the  Earth  evidently  passed  through 
the  comet's  tail  at  that  time,  and  no  doubt  absorbed  a  good 
portion  of  its  substance,  judging  by  the  abbreviated  appear- 
ance of  the  tail  afterwards,  not  the  slightest  effect  could 
with  any  probability  be  atttributed  to  this  fact;  which  clearly 
demonstrates  the  extreme  tenuity  and  ethereal  nature  of  this 
substance.  It  was  supposed  at  the  time  that  the  tail  must 
have  been  electrically  repelled  by  the  Earth's  atmosphere 
(Nature,  84,  163);  but  the  contrary  conclusion  seems  to  have 
been  clearly  proved  by  the  subsequent  appearance  of  the  tail, 
as  intimated  above. 

110.  Meteorites. — Meteorites  would  differ  from  comets  in 
no  respect  whatever  but  their  size.  They  would  originate 
at  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  manner;  the  larger  frag- 
ments being  comets,  the  smaller  being  meteorites.  The  lat- 


194  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [HO 

ter  would  circulate  in  the  same  manner  as  the  former,  and 
often,  no  doubt,  round  the  same  bodies.  Indeed  it  has  re- 
cently been  observed  that  comets  are  nearly  always  accom- 
panied by  immense  streams  of  nteteorites.  Owing  probably 
to  their  smallness  alone  these  bodies  are  invisible  to  us, 
except  upon  very  close  approach;  but  each  of  them  is,  no 
doubt,  accompanied  by  a  minute  tail  or  connective  atmos- 
phere in  the  same  manner  as  a  comet.  If  we  are  in  need  of 
further  evidence,  we  have  it  in  the  bodies  themselves,  which 
we  see  with  our  eyes  and  handle  with  our  hands.  Many 
meteorites,  or  aerolites,  or  comets,  whichever  we  choose  to 
call  them,  fall  annually  upon  the  surface  of  the  Earth.  We 
see  them  fall:  we  dig  them  out  of  the  earth  in  which  their 
momentum  has  buried  them;  and  we  place  them  in  our  mu- 
seums. What  are  they?  They  are  simply  pieces  of  rock, 
about  in  all  respects  similar  to  the  rocks  of  our  own  world. 

"It  has  now  been  shown  that  meteoric  stones  sometimes 
contain  pieces  of  essentially  different  rocks  fused  together 
and  pieces  of  detritus — the  wearing  down  of  older  rocks.  Thus, 
as  we  know  that  sandstone  is  made  of  compacted  sand,  and 
sand  itselt  was  in  some  still  earlier  time  part  of  rocks  worn 
down  by  friction — when  it  is  shown,  as  it  has  been  by  M. 
Meunier,  that  a  sandstone  with  threads  of  copper  in  it  (like 
some  of  our  Lake  Superior  formations)  has  come  to  us  in 
a  meteorite,  his  conclusion  that  these  stones  may  be  part  of 
some  other  world  is  one  that,  however  startling,  we  cannot 
refuse  to  consider."* 

"When  sixteen  years  ago  I  published  the  last  edition  of 
my  work — 'The  Plurality  of  Inhabited  Worlds' — I  did  not 
expect  to  see  the  speedy  confirmation  that  the  progress  of 
astronomy  was  to  give  to  my  essay,  by  allowing  us,  so  to 
speak,  to  put  our  finger  on  the  manifestation  of  planetary 
life.  On  the  one  hand  those  samples  of  other  worlds — the 
aerolites — have  brought  us,  in  their  composition,  certain  ele- 
ments which  play  a  very  extensive  role  in  life — such  as  oxy- 
gen, hydrogen,  chloride  of  sodium,  and  carbon.  The  aero- 
lite which  fell  at  Orgueil  (Tarn-et-Garonne)  in  1864,  brought 
us  coaly  matter — carburets  that  are  due,  like  peat,  to  vege- 
table remains;  the  one  which  fell  at  Lance  (Loire-et-Cher) 
in  1872,  brought  us  salt.  They  had  already  brought  us  water 
in  the  form  of  hydrated  oxide  of  iron.  The  worlds  whence 

*Prof.  S.  P.  Langley,  Century  Magazine,  Jan.  '87. 


110]  ANOMALIES  OP  THE   SOLAR   SYSTEM  195 

these  fragments  come,  do  not  differ  then  essentially  from  our 
own."* 

Another  meteorite  which  fell  at  Mighei,  in  Russia,  June  9, 
1889,  has  been  examined  by  M.  Stanislaus  Meunier,  with  the 
following  result: 

"About  85  per  cent  of  the  rock  was  found  to  be  attacked 
by  acids,  the  portion  so  attacked  being  shown  by  analysis 
to  consist  mainly  of  a  silicate  of  magnesium  and  iron  having 
the  composition  of  peridote.  On  the  remaining  15  per  cent 
being  treated  in  a  current  of  dry  oxygen  gas,  it  readily  took 
fire  and  burnt  very  brilliantly.  The  products  of  combustion, 
which  were  allowed  to  pass  through  the  usual  absorption 
tubes  containing  pumice  and  sulphuric  acid  and  potash, 
showed  that  the  meteorite  contained  nearly  5  per  cent  of 
organic  matter."  f 

The  subject  is  of  sufficient  interest  to  justify  a  few  fur- 
ther quotations  of  the  same  tenor. 

"The  commonest  kind  of  meteoric  stone  consists  of  a  mix- 
ture of  iron  and  various  rocks,  and  contains  a  number  of 
small,  globular  bodies,  which  has  obtained  for  these  bodies 
the  name  of  chond rites.  These  chondrites  are  sometimes  quite 
black  and  contain  amorphous  carbon  and  bituminous  sub- 
stances, probably  products  of  decomposition  of  organic  com- 
pounds. According  to  Dr.  Hahn,  they  are  nothing  more  than 
a  mass  of  tissue  of  animals  or  plant-animals  of  the  lowest 
kind,  such  as  sponges,  crinoids,  corals,  etc.  According  to 
Dr.  Weiland  ("Ausland",  1881,  p.  302)  they  are  remains  of 
corals  belonging  to  the  family  of  the  favostima,  which  on 
earth  are  found  only  as  fossils  in  the  very  oldest  strata;  in 
chrondrites  they  are  of  liliputian  size  as  compared  with  their 
terrestrial  relatives. "I 

"The  diamonds  exposed  (in  a  meteoric  iron  from  Albu- 
querque, N.  M.)  were  small  and  black;  .  .  .  the  presence 
of  such  in  meteorites  having  been  unknown  until  1887,  when 
two  Russian  mineralogists  discovered  traces  of  diamond  in 
a  mixture  of  olivine  and  bronzite."§ 

"It  is  said  that  the  diamond  is  a  direct  gift  from  heaven 
conveyed  to  earth  in  meteoric  showers."  §§ 

*Camille  Flammarion,   Sci.  Am.   Suppl.,   No.   175. 

fNature,  41,  232. 

JBuchner,  Force  and  Matter,  p.  137. 

§Prof.  G.  A.  Koenig,  Nature,  45,  180. 

§§A.  Mcydenbauer,  Chemical  News,  66,  209. 


196  THfi    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [110 

"In  1,846  a  meteorite  fell  in  Hungary  ("Ava  Meteorite") 
which  contained  diamonds;  in  1886  one  fell  in  Russia  contain- 
ing about  one  per  cent,  of  carbon  in  light  grey  grains  having 
the  hardness  of  diamonds  and  burning  in  oxygen  to  carbonic 
acid.  In  Arizona  over  an  area  five  miles  in  diameter  are 
scattered  thousands  of  masses  of  metallic  iron  from  half  a 
ton  weight  down.  Near  the  center  of  the  tract,  where  most 
of  the  meteorites  lay,  is  a  crater  three-quarters  of  a  mile  in 
diameter,  with  raised  edges,  and  about  600  feet  deep,  which 
has  exactly  the  appearance  which  would  be  produced  by  a 
mighty  mass  of  iron,  or  falling  star,  striking  the  ground  and 
burying  itself  deep  under  the  surface.  These  Canon  Diabolo 
meteorites  about  all  contain  black  and  transparent  dia- 
monds."* 

"The  Farmington  meteorite  contained  metallic  veins, 
which,  on  our  planet,  are  usually  deposited  by  water  in  the 
open  fractures  of  rock."t 

"Spectrum  analysis  shows  in  cometary  nebulae  the  four  or 
five  lines  characteristic  of  hydro-carbons.  Cosmic  matter 
must  then  contain  compounds  of  carbon  of  the  substances 
that  are  especially  typical  of  organic  chemistry.  Besides, 
carbon  and  a  sort  of  humus  have  been  found  in  several 
meteorites. "J 

Now  all  these  remarkable  facts  are  wholly  inexplicable 
by  the  present  theory.  They  are,  indeed,  so  utterly  at  var- 
iance with  the  genesis  of  worlds,  according  to  that  theory, 
that  prominent  scientists,  as  the  easiest  way  of  avoiding  the 
contradiction,  strenuously  deny  that  meteorites  contain  any 
organic  traces  whatever  ;§  or,  if  they  undeniably  contain  or- 
ganic traces,  deny  their  meteoric  origin.  §§  Up  to  the  present 
time,  the  most  reasonable  theory  of  the  origin  of  meteorites 
is  that  of  J.  Norman  Lockyer  and  G.  H.  Darwin;  which 
is  that  they  are  mere  isolated  condensations  of  the  primordial 
vapor  in  the  extreme  cold  of  interplanetary  space,  and 
brought  into  their  present  state  by  innumerable  collisions 
with  one  another  in  meteoritic  swarms.  Of  course  this  the- 
ory utterly  precludes  the  existence  of  any  vegetable  or  or- 
ganic substance  in  these  bodies. 

*Prof.  W.  M.  Crookes,  Royal  Institution,  London,  June  11,  1897. 

fNature,  63,  290. 

JProf.    A.    Dastre,    Smith.    Rept.,    1902,    395. 

§  Nature,  34,  533. 

§§ Transactions,  Astron.  and  Phys.  Soc.,  Toronto,   1898,  p.  121. 


Ill]  ANOMALIES   OP  THE   SOLAR   SYSTPIM  197 

The  theory  of  their  origin  which  is  advanced  in  the  pres- 
work  is,  on  the  contrary,  completely  in  harmony  with  that 
oi  M.  Sanislaus  Meunier,  of  which  a  Commission  of  the  Paris 
Academy  said  that  he  was  justified  in  concluding  "that  all 
these  masses  once  belonged  to  a  considerable  globe  like  the 
earth,  having  true  geological  epochs,  and  that  later  it  was 
decomposed  into  separate  fragments  under  the  action  of  caus- 
es difficult  to  define  exactly,  but  which  we  have  more  than 
once  seen  in  operation  in  the  heavens  themselves."*  So  also 
Prof.  Win.  A.  Pickering,!  who  ventures  so  far  as  to  suppose 
that  the  fracture  of  the  Earth's  solid  crust  gave  origin  to  the 
stony  meteorites  though  not  to  the  iron  meteorites.  He  says: 
"This  implies  a  solid  crust  for  the  earth  at  the  date  of  birth 
of  the  moon,  which  previous  investigations  of  the  place  of 
origin  of  that  body  seems  to  justify." 

111.  Discrepancies  of  the  Planetary  Masses  and  Motions. 
— It  is  probable  that  in  the  collapse  of  each  planet-ring,  sev- 
eral comets  and  numberless  meteorites  would  come  into  ex- 
istence. It  seems  possible  even  that  in  the  extraordinary 
violence  of  the  falling  masses,  almost  the  whole  ring  might 
thus  occasionally  be  broken  up  into  such  separate  fragments. 
It  is  a  reasonable  geometrical  deduction  that  the  mass  of 
each  planet-ring  should  bear  a  definite  ratio  to  the  space 
through  which  the  Sun  contracted  during  the  crust-formation, 
or,  approximately,  the  space  between  the  orbit  of  the  result- 
ing planet  and  that  of  the  next  preceding.  According  to  this 
view,  the  outermost  planets  should  be  vastly  larger  than  the 
iimermost;  and,  in  general,  this  is  the  fact.  But  still  there 
are  great  discrepancies.  Uranus  and  Neptune  ought  to  be 
much  larger  than  Saturn  or  Jupiter,  whereas  they  are  much 
smaller.  Mars  again  should  be  larger  than  the  Earth,  where- 
as it  is  little  more  than  a  tenth  as  large.  And  the  united 
mass  of  the  Asteroids  should  be  second  only  to  that  of  Jupi- 
ter, whereas  it  is  less  than  a  millionth  of  Jupiter's  mass. 
By  the  present  theory  these  discrepancies  are  unaccountable. 

*Prof.  Holden,  Account  of  Progress  in  Astronomy,  in  1881,  p.  28. 
fPop.  Astron.,  May,   1909. 


198  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [HI 

By  the  new  theory  they  are  reasonably  attributable  to  the 
dissipation  of  the  ring-substance  in  comets  and  meteorites. 
In  corroboration  of  this  view,  we  observe  that  it  is  in  those 
cases  in  which  the  mass-discrepancy  is  most  marked  that  we 
meet  with  other  irregular  phenomena.  For  example,  the  axis 
of  rotation  of  Neptune,  Uranus  and  Mars  vary  the  most  from 
the  perpendicular  to  the  orbit-plane;  which  clearly  indicates 
that  these  bodies  are  but  larger  residual  fragments  of  the 
parent-rings,  the  axes  of  which  have  been  tilted  in  the  part- 
ing shocks  of  the  portions  ejected  as  comets  and  meteorites. 
However  great  the  violence  of  the  ring-disruption,  if  only  the 
whole  mass  of  the  ring  would  aggregate  into  the  resulting 
sphere,  there  could  be  no  variation  of  the  axis  of  rotation  of 
this  sphere  from  the  perpendicular  to  the  orbit-plane.  It  is  not 
impossible  that  very  large  masses  might  be  ejected  from  the 
resulting  sphere  without  changing  the  inclination  of  its  axis. 
But  it  is  quite  evident  that  when  the  axis  of  rotation  is  in- 
clined from  the  axis  of  orbital  revolution,  an  ejection  of  por- 
tions of  the  planet-ring  as  comets  and  meteorites  is  certainly 
indicated.  Of  course  after  the  axis  of  the  new  sphere  becomes 
once  tilted,  "it  always  remains  so;  and  the  succeeding  satel- 
lites would  have  their  axes  of  revolution  at  the  same  inclina- 
tion. This  would  obviously  be  the  case  with  Neptune  and 
Uranus,  the  orbit-planes  of  whose  satellites  are  almost  per- 
pendicular to  the  planes  of  the  planetary  orbits. 

Another  hitherto  inexplicable  irregularity  of  which  this 
cometary  ejection  is  a  very  plausible  explanation  is  the  ex- 
traordinarily small  period  of  revolution  of  the  recently  dis- 
covered Martial  satellites;  that  of  the  inner  one  being  less 
than  one-third  the  rotation  period  of  Mars.  Of  this  very 
unusual  phenomenon  the  probable  explanation  is  that  the  sat- 
ellite is  comparatively  a  small  fragment  of  the  satellite-ring, 
the  ejected  portions  of  which,  by  their  final  impact,  impressed 
upon  it  a  certain  amount  of  motion  in  a  backward  direction; 
and  hence  the  body  was  drawn  inwards  by  the  elasticity  of 
its  connexion  until  its  increased  angular  velocity  generated 
a,  centrifugal  force  balancing  the  elasticity  of  the  connexion. 


112]  ANOMALIES  OF  THE   SOLAR   SYSTEM  199 

it  seems  quite  probable  that  the  structure  of  the  planet- 
and  satellite-rings  would  differ  very  considerably;  the  sub- 
stance of  some  being  hard  and  elastic,  while  that  of  others 
would  be  soft  and  pliable,  according  with  the  various  con- 
ditions to  which  their  formations  would  be  subjected.  To 
the  former  class  evidently  would  belong  the  anomalous  plan- 
ets here  considered,  together  with  their  satellites.  It  is  also 
probable  that,  owing  to  their  fragmentary  nature,  some  of 
this  class  of  planets  and  satellites,  especially  the  smaller 
bodies,  might  at  their  origin  have  retained  a  portion  or  nearly 
all,  of  their  structural  development,  much  the  same,  in  fact, 
as  the  nuclei  of  comets.  Upon  this  assumption,  the  two  sat- 
ellites of  Mars  may  be  blocks  of  solid  rock.  In  such  bodies 
the  genitive  process,  if  it  existed  at  all,  would  be  exceedingly 
slow;  the  more  so  on  those  in  which  the  greater  degree  of 
development  was  retained. 

112.  The  Minor  Planets. — According  to  the  current  the- 
ory, the  minor  planets  or  Asteroids,  may  have  been  owing 
to  a  stratification  of  the  parent  ring  from  which  "it  is  quite 
conceivable  that  numerous  planets  might  result."*  Or  the 
ring  might  have  persisted  until  excess  of  perturbation 
"brought  it  into  contact  with  the  planet  Mars,"t  by  which 
collision  it  was  broken  up  into  the  Asteroids.  Or  Olber's 
theory  of  an  exploded  planet  might  be  the  correct  one,$ 
t;pon  reviewing  which  array  of  "contingencies,"  Prof.  A.  Win- 
ehell  confidently  remarks:  "The  possibilities  of  the  nebular 
theory,  therefore,  deprive  of  all  force  any  objection  based 
upon  the  existence  of  a  group  of  asteroids." 

As  the  superior  genius  of  its  more  recent  supporter  would 
lead  us  to  expect,  the  last  theory  (of  which  Prof.  Winchell 
mentions  his  rejection  merely  in  a  footnote)  comes  the  near- 
est to  the  explanation  which  appears  to  be  the  true  one.  The 
"grotesque"  conception  of  a  body  liquifying,  and  even  solid- 
ifying, around  a  gaseous  nucleus,  which  Mr.  Spencer  "sets 
forth",  is  in  exact  accordance  with  the  views  here  advanced. 

*A.  Winchell,  World-Life,,  p.   176. 

tB.  Pierce,  Gould's  Astron.  Jour.,  2,  18;  G.  Hinnicns,  Am.  Jour.  Sci., 

II,  39,  p.   54. 
JHerbert  Spencer,  Westminister  Review,   70,   113. 


200  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [113 

Had  he  only  extended  his  conception  a  little  further  to  the 
equatorial  projection  and  eventual  separation  of  such  a  solid- 
ified crust,  and  its  final  fracture  and  falling  together  through 
many  millions  of  miles,  Mr.  Spencer  would  have  arrived  at 
precisely  the  same  explanation  of  these  bodies  that  is  here 
offered— with  only  this  exception:  He  had  the  solidified 
crust  upon  the  planet,  while  the  new  theory  would  have  it 
upon  the  Sun.  If  the  substance  of  such  a  solidified  planet- 
ring  be  supposed  to  be  peculiarly  brittle  and  elastic,  in  which 
supposition  there  appears  to  be  nothing  unreasonable,  the  vio- 
lence of  its  collapse  through  such  an  immense  space  would 
amply  account  for  the  fragments  which  alone  remain  to  tell 
the  story.  These  are  but  the  few  the  violence  of  whose  ejec- 
tion from  the  center  of  aggregation  chanced  to  be  only  suffi- 
cient to  separate  their  mutual  connexions  without  severing 
those  with  the  primary.  The  vast  majority,  having  wholly 
severed  their  parental  connexions  (and  probably  their  frater- 
nal connexions  also),  had  become  wanderers  among  other  and 
distant  worlds. 

133.  Comets  from  Satellite  Rings. — Would  these  wanderers 
ever  return  to  the  place  of  their  birth?  Probably  not;  for 
their  family  connexions  would  all,  or  nearly  all,  be  severed; 
and  therefore  they  would  have  no  inducement  to  retrace  their 
path.  It  would  probably  be  otherwise,  however,  with  the 
fragments  escaping  from  the  satellite-rings.  These,  while 
severing  their  primary  connexions  with  the  planets,  might 
still  retain  their  secondary  connexions  with  the  Sun  and  some 
other  planets;  in  the  direction  of  some  one  of  which  they 
might  perhaps  be  projected  and  so  circulate  around  the  Sun 
and  that  one  planet.  The  following  quotation  is  strongly  con- 
firmatory of  this  view: 

"The  Pons-Brooks  comet  of  1883-84  is  extremely  interest- 
ing, as  presenting  the  first  instance  (excepting  Halley's  comet 
of  course)  of  one  of  the  Neptunian  family  of  comets  return- 
ing to  perihelion.  There  are  six  of  these  bodies,  with  per- 
iods ranging  from  sixty-eight  to  seventy  years.  Halley's  comet, 
the  only  large  one  of  the  group,  has  made  many  returns, 
and  is  due  in  1910.  Pon's  comet,  first  observed  in  1812,  has 
now  returned;  Giber's  comet  of  1815  is  due  in  1889,  and  three 


114]    INTERPLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  WEATHER     201 

others,  all  of  them  small,  in  1919-20  and  1922.  I  have  spoken 
of  them  as  Neptunian  comets,  i.  e.,  their  presence  in  our  sys- 
tem is  known  to  be  due  in  some  way  to  this  planet.  The 
now  generally  received  theory  is  that  they  have  had  their 
orbits  changed  from  parabolas  into  their  present  shape  by 
the  disturbing  action  of  Neptune.  Mr.  Proctor  has  pointed 
out  certain  unquestionable,  though  I  think,  inconclusive,  ob- 
jections to  this  view,  and  he  proposes,  as  an  alternative,  the 
startling  and  apparently  improbable  hypothesis  that  they 
have  been  ejected  from  the  planet  at  some  time  past  by  some- 
thing like  volcanic  action."* 

But  although  Mr.  Proctor's  hypothesis  after  all  comes  re- 
markably near  to  what  has  every  appearance  of  being  the 
fact,  yet  it  seems  certain  that  a  comet  could  never  return  to 
the  primary  from  the  ring  of  which  it  was  first  ejected,  and 
with  which  all  its  connexions  are  broken. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


INTE  PLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  WEATHER 


What  are  the  fewest  assumptions,  which  being  granted, 
the  order  of  nature  as  it  exists  would  be  the  result?  What 
are  the  fewest  general  propositions  from  which  all  the  uni- 
formities existing  in  nature  could  be  deduced? — J.  S.  MILL. 

In  matters  of  evidence,  as  in  all  other  human  things,  we 
neither  require,  nor  can  attain,  the  absolute.  We  must  hold 
our  strongest  convictions  with  an  opening  left  in  our  minds 
for  the  reception  of  facts  which  contradict  them;  and  only 
when  we  have  taken  this  percaution  have  we  earned  the  right 
to  act  upon  our  convictions  with  complete  confidence  when 
no  such  contradiction  appears. — J.  S.  MILL. 

The  true  test  of  theory,  in  physical  science,  is  to  bring 
it  face  to  face  with  the  facts  of  nature,  to  see  if  it  is  consist- 
ent with  these  facts,  and  if  it  can  help  us  to  explain  them. 

—GERALD  MOLLOY. 

114.  Classification  of  Connexions. — According  to  the  con- 
nective theory,  every  planet  of  the  Solar  System  is  connected 
with  the  Sun  by  a  primary  bond,  with  every  other  planet 

*Frof.   C.  A.  Young,   Nature,    35,    117. 


202  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [114 

by  a  secondary  bond,  and  with  other  heavenly  bodies  by 
bonds  of  various  degrees  of  kinship.  Also  these  planetary 
bonds,  or  connexions,  are  in  every  case  material  and  highly 
elastic,  though  very  probably  decreasing  in  material  density 
with  the  remoteness  of  relationship  of  the  bodies  between 
which  they  subtend;  and  though  even  the  densest  or  primary 
connexions  may  be  quite  as  tenuous  as  entities  now  regarded 
as  immaterial. 

Now  the  Earth  must  be  profoundly  affected  by  material 
connexions  of  such  immense  magnitude  exending  outwards 
on  all  sides  of  it  to  all  known  bodies.  As  our  planet  circu- 
lates annually  around  the  Sun,  it  alternately  approaches  and 
recedes  from  each  of  the  other  planets,  as  well  as  the  Sun 
itself;  and  these  alternate  approaches  and  recessions  involve, 
according  to  the  new  theory,  alternate  accumulations  and 
drains  of  the  connective  substance  in  our  atmosphere.  How- 
ever tenuous  and  ethereal  this  substance  may  be,  the  accu- 
mulations and  drains  of  such  enormous  quantities  of  it  in 
our  atmosphere  cannot  but  profoundly  affect  the  elements  or 
processes  naturally  existing  therein — the  barometric  pressure, 
the  atmospheric  electricity,  precipitation,  etc.  Ana  if  there 
really  should  be  found  changes  of  these  atmospheric  elements 
corresponding  to  these  accumulations  and  drains  of  connec- 
tive substance,  extending  over  a  great  period  of  time  with 
scarcely  a  single  exception — what  a  beautiful  and  wonderful 
and  indisputable  corroboration  of  the  new  theory  it  would  be! 

It  is  however  an  extremely  laborious  undertaking,  of  very 
great  magnitude  and  difficulty.  But  it  is  not  an  impossible 
task  and  is  surely  well  worth  the  effort.  The  necessary  data 
for  this  calculation  is  the  actual  amount  of  the  drain  or  ac- 
cumulation of  the  connective  substance  upon  the  Earth  for 
each  month  of  a  period  of  years  sufficient  to  deter- 
mine the  relation,  if  such  there  be,  between  the  assigned 
cause  and  the  actual  phenomena. 

At  a  first  glance,  the  vast  number  and  various  kinds  of 
connexions  which,  according  to  our  premises,  would  fall  upon 
the  Earth  appears  amazing;  and  the  reduction  to  order  and 


114]          INTERPLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  WEATHER  203 

the  determination  of  their  variations  seem  utterly  impossible. 
Moreover,  to  determine  the  relative  amount  of  connective 
variation  due  to  any  body  with  which  the  Earth  is  connected, 
the  relative  mass  of  the  body  is  an  indispensable  datum; 
>et  this  datum  is  ascertainable  at  the  present  time  only  for 
the  bodies  primarily,  and  for  a  portion  of  the  bodies  second- 
arily, connected  with  us. 

Fortunately,  however,  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  present 
purpose  to  determine  the  relative  quantitive  variations  of  the 
Earth-connexions  of  every  order.  In  fact  we  need  only  con- 
sider such  variations  in  the  case  of  primary  and  secondary 
connexions,  or  just  in  those  cases  alone  in  which  it  is  now 
possible  to  do  so.  Connexions  more  remote  than  the  second- 
ary, and  even  a  few  secondary  connexions  themselves,  are 
with  bodies  so  distantly  related  to  us  that  their  masses,  mag- 
nitude, and  often,  perhaps,  their  existence  are  absolutely  un- 
known to  us.  All  these  connexions  will,  therefore,  be  grouped 
in  one  class,  which  will  be  designated  the  sidereal  class  or 
factor;  and  as  both  the  period  and  the  linear  amount  of  var- 
iation is  almost  mathematically  identical  for  every  member 
of  this  class,  it  is  only  necessary  for  us  here  to  consider  their 
quantitive  difference  upon  opposite  sides  of  the  Earth,  and 
regard  this  difference  as  if  it  were  owing  to  a  single  heavenly 
body.  All  the  connexions  which  fall  upon  the  Earth's  sur- 
face may,  therefore,  be  included  in  three  groups — primary, 
secondary,  and  sidereal. 

The  primary  group  consists  of  only  two  members,  or  that 
with  the  Sun  and  that  with  the  Moon.  The  secondary  group 
may  be  divided  into  two  sub-groups,  or  those  connexions 
which  extend  towards  the  bodies  which  are  immediately  de- 
rived from  the  Sun  and  those  which  extend  towards  the 
bodies  from  which  the  Sun  itself  is  immediately  derived. 
But  the  latter  of  these  is  really  included  in  the  sidereal  fac- 
tor, and,  therefore,  does  not  require  a  separate  consideration 
for  the  present  purpose.  It  may  subsequently  receive  at- 
tention, however,  in  connection  with  another  subject.  So 
that  there  is  thus  finally  arrived  at  four  different  factors  to 


204  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [114 

which  the  supposed  connective  variations  in  the  Earth's  at- 
mosphere would  be  due,  viz.,  the  sidereal,  the  solar,  the  lunar, 
and  the  planetary. 

Now  there  is  one  thing  that  distinguishes  the  planetary 
and  the  lunar  factors  from  the  other  two,  viz.,  the  incommen- 
surableness  of  their  periods  with  the  year.  The  sidereal  and 
the  solar  factors  each  go  through  a  complete  cycle  of  vari- 
ations in  almost  precisely  one  year;  whereas  each  planet- 
ary variation  goes  through  a  complete  cycle  only  in  the  syn- 
odic period  of  its  respective  planet  with  the  Earth;  and  the 
lunar  variation  has  a  period  of  thirteen  and  three-fourths 
days — each  of  which  is  incommensurable  with  the  Earth's 
period.  The  effect  of  the  former  two  factors,  therefore, 
would  be  almost  exactly  alike  in  each  succeotuve  year;  where- 
as the  effects  of  the  latter  two  would  not  be  alike  in  every 
year,  but  only  in  successive  periods  or  cycles  of  years.  The 
latter  are,  therefore,  independent  of  the  former  so  far  as 
these  periods  of  years  are  concerned;  and  once  these  periods 
are  determined,  they  remain  almost  wholly  unaffected  by  the 
other  factors. 

The  lunar  factor,  although  of  some  consequence  in  small 
portions  of  time,  such  as  a  day,  would  have  scarcely  an  ap- 
preciable effect  on  a  table  of  monthly  values.  Although  its 
period  is  incommensurable  with  the  year,  yet  that  period  is 
such  that,  in  any  particular  month,  its  algebraic  effect  is 
comparatively  small;  so  that  the  main  characteristics  of  the 
longer  periods  of  connective  variations  upon  the  Earth,  as 
ascertained  from  the  planetary  factor  alone,  will  not  be  meas- 
urably affected  by  this  any  more  than  by  the  other  two  fac- 
tors. This  will  subsequently  be  shown  more  in  detail. 

From  this  preliminary  examination,  then,  it  is  found  that 
the  planetary  factor  is  almost  the  only  portion  of  the  whole 
body  of  connective  variations  upon  the  Earth  which  would 
cause  one  year  to  differ  from  another,  and  so  cause  ordinary 
yearly  periods,  with  respect  to  such  variations.  We  may, 
therefore,  conveniently  begin  with  this  factor  of  the  connec- 
tive variation  in  our  atmosphere  in  order  to  ascertain  these 


115]          INTERPLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  WEATHER  205 

yearly  periods  of  these  variations,  and  afterwards  the  effects 
of  the  other  factors  may  be  added  to  modify  the  results  thus 
determined. 

115.  Factors  of  the  Planetary  Connexion-Variations. — The 
current  relative  masses  of  the  seven  planets  with  which  the 
Earth  is  here  .assumed  to  be  connected  are  sufficiently  ac- 
curate for  the  present  purpose.  It  is  to  be  observed  first 
that,  whatever  the  magnitude  of  the  planet  may  be,  the  con- 
nexion joining  it  with  the  Earth  will  manifestly  have  the 
same  sectional  area  at  the  Earth's  surface  as  the  Earth  itself; 
and  second,  that  the  mass-values  for  equal  linear  units  of  this 
uniform  sectional  area  obviously  depend  upon  the  mass-val- 
ues of  the  bodies  to  which  the  connexions  respectively  ex- 
tend. 

Commencing  with  the  planet  Mercury,  the  linear  variation 
of  its  connexion  with  the  Earth  would  be  71,500,000  miles,  or 
the  diameter  of  Mercury's  orbit;  and  also  this  variation  takes 
place  in  58  days,  or  half  its  synodic  period  with  the  Earth. 
To  obtain  the  volume-variation  corresponding  to  this  linear 
variation,  the  latter  is  to  be  multiplied  by  49,000,000,  or  the 
sectional  area  of  the  Earth  in  square  miles.  Then  to  obtain 
the  mass-variation,  this  last  is  to  be  muliplied  by  the  mass- 
value  of  the  planet.  This  will  give  the  relative  mass-varia- 
tion of  this  connexion  with  respect  to  that  of  some  other 
planet,  obtained  in  the  same  way.  If  the  absolute  mass-var- 
iation were  to  be  obtained,  the  relative  mass-variation  of  the 
connexion  would  have  to  be  multiplied  by  the  mass-value  of 
the  connexion  itself,  as  compared  with  that  of  an  equal  vol- 
ume of  some  known  standard  substance.  But,  at  the  present 
time,  this  absolute  mass-value  of  a  connexion  is  wholly  un- 
known. It  seems  certain  that  the  connective  substance  must 
be  extremely  attenuated,  so  much  so,  in  fact,  that  it  would 
be  quite  independent  of  the  attraction  of  gravity,  and  there- 
fore would  possess,  as  such,  no  degree  whatever  of  the  pecul- 
iar property  which  is  called  weight.  The  mass-value  of  one 
connexion  with  respect  to,  or  in  terms  of,  that  of  another 
may  be  determined.  But  this  appears  to  be  the  limit  of  our 


206 


THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY 


[115 


present  knowledge  in  this  respect.  As  to  how  many  grains 
of  substance  there  are  in  a  cubic  yard,  or  a  cubic  mile,  of  any 
particular  planetary  connexion  if  it  were  all  changed  into 
some  form  amenable  to  gravity,,  nothing  is  known.  There- 
fore, since  only  relative  mass-values  of  the  planetary  connex- 
ions must  be  employed,  and  since  Mercury  is«  the  smallest  of 
the  seven  planets,  its  mass  may  be  taken  as  unity;  that  of 
any  other  planet  being  greater  than  unity  as  its  mass  is  great- 
er than  that  of  Mercury.  The  mass-variation  of  Mercury's 
connexion,  then,  since  the  density  of  that  connexion  is  taken 
as  the  standard,  will  be  just  the  same  as  its  volume-variation. 
The  linear  variation  of  the  Earth's  connexion  with  Venus 
is  133,500,000  miles,  or  the  diameter  of  the  latter's  orbit,  and 
it  takes  place  in  292  days,  or  half  the  synodic  period  of  Venus 
with  the  Earth.  The  volume-variation  is  obtained  just  as  in 
the  case  of  Mercury;  and  to  obtain  the  mass-variation,  the 
volume-variation  is  multiplied  by  12,  that  being  the  relative 
mass-value  of  Venus  as  compared  with  that  of  Mercury  as 
unity.  The  linear  variation,  and  consequently  the  volume- 
variation,  of  each  of  the  outer  planets  is  numerically  the 
same;  the  former,  in  the  case  of  each  of  these  planets,  being 

TABLE   I. 
Planetary  Connexion-Variations  With   Respect  to  the  Earth.* 


, 

C3     TJ 

o 

£ 

•S  !l 

ai     • 

o 

'•£ 

PH 

3     '£    $ 

0}   T-J 
p      1 

.2  '£  S 

2  ^  * 

j| 

>  & 

^  £s 

~      II 

K«  £  S 

,*  <5  5 

fc  JJ  "• 

£    c  0 

K*   ^ 

^*      C      0 

^  *  *« 

!* 

g  §  i 

111 

cc  Z 

a  v 

i  §  I 

111 

J>.2 

13  '-£  ^ 

K*"    '^  O 

S^ 

S  '£  C> 

S  .S  o 

Mercury     .  .  . 

58 

71,500,000 

3.500X101 

1 

35X101* 

6XlO'a 

Venus    

292 

133,500,000 

6,500X10' 

12 

78X10'S 

27X10" 

Mars 

390 

186,000,000 

9,114X10' 

1.5 

14X101& 

4X10" 

Jupiter     .... 

199 

186,000,000 

9.114X101 

4,771 

43,483X10'a 

21,851X10" 

Saturn     .... 

189 

186,000,000 

9,114X10' 

1,428 

13.015X1015 

6,886X10" 

Uranus     .... 

185 

186,000,000 

9.114X101 

221 

2,014X10'° 

1,089X10" 

Neptune     .  .  . 

184J186,  000,000 

9,114X10'        258 

2.351X1015 

1,278X10" 

*The  masses,  periods,  and  distances  of  the  planets  here. employed  are 
those  given  by  Prof.  Simon  Newcomb  in  his  Popular  Astronomy,  sixth 
edition. 


116]          INTERPLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  WEATHER  207 

186,000,000  miles,  or  the  diameter  of  the  Earth's  orbit. 
The  half-synodic  period,  the  linear,  volume-,  and  mass- 
variations,  and  the  mass-value  for  each  of  the  seven  planets 
are  given  in  table  I  on  the  preceding  page;  a  sixth  column 
being  added  in  which  is  given,  for  purposes  of  comparison, 
the  mass-variation  of  each  planet  for  one  day. 

As  for  the  less  important  members  of  the  Solar  System 
with  which  the  Earth  is  secondarily  connected,  such  as  the 
satellites,  minor  planets,  and  perhaps  some  comets,  even 
their  aggregate  mass,  so  far  as  known,  would  be  comparative- 
ly small;  and  besides,  these  bodies  are  always  distributed  on 
all  sides  of  the  Earth,  so  that  their  quantitive  excess  on  one 
side  as  compared  with  the  opposite  side  is  all  that  would 
really  operate  to  affect  connective  variation  upon  the  Earth. 
And  this  excess,  in  view  of  the  extremely  small  individual 
masses  of  the  bodies,  and  their  comparatively  small  aggre- 
gate mass,  is  quite  safely  negligible. 

Indeed,  a  glance  at  the  last  column  of  table  I  shows  us 
that  the  same  is  true  also  of  the  three  smaller  of  the  major 
planets;  the  variations  in  equal  times  due  to  all  but  the  tour 
outermost  of  which  sink  into  comparative  insignificance.  In 
fact  we  observe  that  Neptune,  the  most  distant  planet,  is 
nearly  fifty  times  more  effective  than  Venus,  the  nearest. 
So  that,  dividing  the  value  of  each  body  in  order  that  the  val- 
ue of  the  greatest  may  be  represented  by  three  figures  for 
convenience  in  tabulating,  all  the  three  inner  planets  together 
drop  below  unity,  and  therefore  out  of  the  calculation. 

116.  Amount  of  the  Planetary  Factors. — Now  it  is  possible 
that  all  of  the  four  outer  planets  may  be  nearly  in  conjunc- 
tion, or  have  nearly  the  same  heliocentric  longitude;  and 
the  drains  or  accumulations  of  their  respective  connexions 
may,  therefore,  affect  the  Earth's  atmosphere  all  at  the  same 
time.  Summing  up  the  values  of  the  average  variations  of 
the  connexions  of  these  bodies  in  the  last  column  of  table  I, 
taking  half  the  sum  for  the  variations  caused  upon  these 
bodies  themselves,  and  multiplying  by  three  to  allow  for  the 
maximum  rate  of  variation  owing  to  the  curvilinear  path  in 


208  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [117 

which  the  Earth  moves,  we  have,  possibly,  about  5  X 10"  cubic 
miles  of  connective  substance  either  drawn  out  of,  or  accu- 
mulating in,  our  atmosphere  in  a  single  day.  This  tremen- 
dous volume  is  about  twenty  million  times  that  of  our  atmos- 
phere, estimating  its  height  at  five  hundred  miles. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  outer  limits  of  our  atmosphere, 
and  especially  of  the  connective  atmosphere,  must  be  far 
more  distant  than  five  hundred  miles.  Moreover  the  least 
density,  that  of  Mercury's  connexion,  is  taken  as  the  stand- 
ard, the  density  of  Jupiter's  connexion  being  some  4,800 
times  greater.  Also  the  connective  substance,  or  ethereal 
fluid,  which  is  thus  supposed  to  ebb  and  flow  in  our  atmos- 
phere, is  really  imponderable  matter — matter  not  subject  to 
the  attraction  of  gravity  because  it  is  matter  similar  to  that 
whose  molecular  motions  really  constitute  the  attraction  of 
gravity — and  thus  does  not  admit  of  comparison  with  matter 
as  we  are  sensible  of  it.  The  most  perfect  vacuum  attain- 
able with  a  Gaede  molecular  pump  has  a  density  of  only 
about  1/300,000,000  of  an  atmosphere;  yet  the  density  of  this 
vacuum  must  be  immensely  greater  than  that  of  a  planetary 
connexion,  for  the  reason  that  the"  former  possesses  still  the 
undiminished  density  of  the  Earth's  connective  atmosphere, 
to  which  each  of  the  innumerable  terrestial  connexions  com- 
posing it  must  contribute  but  a  minute  degree. 

It  is  contended  here  simply  that  an  increased  pressure  or 
density  of  the  connective  substance  in  our  atmosphere,  man- 
ifested, perhaps,  in  the  phenomena  of  earth-currents  and 
auroras,  may  induce  the  transformation  of  a  portion  of  the 
imponderable  fluid  into  ponderable  forms,  affecting  baromet- 
ric pressure  and  atmospheric  precipitation;  and  also  that  an 
extensive  drain  upon  the  connective  fluid  in  cur  atmosphere 
may  induce  transformation  of  sensible  gases  and  vapors  back 
again  into  the  imponderable  state  and  have  opposite  meteor- 
ological effects. 

117.  Monthly  Variations  of  the  Planetary  Factor. — Divid- 
ing the  mass-values  of  the  connective  variations  as  given  in 
the  fifth  column  of  table  I  by  10",  so  that  the  figures  may 


117]          INTERPLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  WEATHER 


209 


be  conveniently  tabulated,  gives  435  for  the  value  of  that 
due  to  Jupiter,  130  for  that  due  to  Saturn,  20  for  that  due 
to  Uranus,  and  24  for  that  due  to  Neptune,  in  the  respective 
half  synodic  periods  of  these  planets  with  the  Earth.  The 

TABLE    II. 

Monthly  Variations  of  the   Planetary  Connexions   Upon   the 
Earth,  1888-91. 


>> 

>> 

FH 

3 

,Q 

h 

S3 

,0 

1 

L 

3 

3 

V 

a 

03 

g 
»-s 

1 

o 
eS 

I 

>» 

0) 

a 

£ 
•-s 

1 

3 

W> 

$ 

1 

£ 

OQ 

,Q 
O 

O 

I 

3 

1888 

Jupiter 

88 

uw 

199 
W9 

88 

60 

11* 

38 

76 

94 

94 

76 

38 

"11 

Saturn    

*0 

15 

25 

31 

29 

21 

°7 

8 

24. 

33 

33 

24 

Uranus     
Neptune      .... 

5 

4 

4 
6 

1* 
6 

1 

4 

4 
2° 

5 
2 

5 

4 

6 

6 

4 

2* 

2 

| 

1889 

Jupiter     

60 

88 

99 

88 

60 

12* 

39 

76 

94 

94 

76 

38 

Saturn    

8 

7* 

21 

29 

31 

25 

15 

0 

16 

30 

34 

30 

. 

*  1 

Uranus     
Neptune    

o 

4 

; 

6 

1 

6 

A 

4 

: 

2° 

2 

4 

6 

6 

4 

2* 

2 

1890 

Jupiter     

• 

50 

83 

103 

97 

69 

25* 

*, 
25i 

69 

97 

103 

83 

Saturn    

16 

if 

15 

25 

31 

29 

21 

7° 

8 

24 

33 

33 

Uranus     

5 

4 

] 

*1 

4 

5 

5 

4; 

1 

*1 

4 

5 

Neptune    

4 

6 

6 

4 

2* 

2 

4 

6 

6 

4 

2* 

2 

1891 

Jupiter     •  .  .  .  . 

50 

0 

38 

76 

94 

94 

76 

38 

11* 

60 

88 

99 

Saturn    ...... 

24 

g 

*7 

21 

29 

31 

25 

15 

0 

16 

30 

34 

Uranus      

5 

4 

1 

2 

5 

6 

5 

2 

2 

5 

Neptune    ..... 

4 

6 

6 

4 

2° 

2 

4 

6 

6 

4 

2* 

2 

values  of  the  connective  variation  of  the  other  planets  in 
their  respective  half  synodic  periods  are  each  less  than  unity 
of  this  scale,  and  are,  therefore,  disregarded. 

Between  opposition  and  conjunction*  of  these  planets  with 
the  Earth,  the  intervening  connective  substance  would  accu- 
mulate in  our  atmosphere,  and,  between  conjunction  and  oppo- 
sition, it  would  be  drawn  out.  The  times  of  these  conjunctions 
and  oppositions  are,  therefore,  to  be  ascertained  in  the  case  of 

*If  they  could  conveniently  be  avoided,  these  terms  would  not  be 
employed,  as  they  must  be  used  here  in  a  sense  directly  opposite  to  that 
usually  given  them.  Throughout  these  pages  two  planets  are  regarded 
as  being  in  conjunction  when  they  are  together  on  one  side  of  the  Sun, 
or  have  the  same  heliocentric  longitude;  and  they  are  regarded  as  in 
opposition  when  they  are  on  opposite  sides  of  the  Sun,  or  are  180°  of 
heliocentric  longitude  apart.  On  the  contrary,  a  planet  is  usually  re- 


210  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [117 

each  planet,  plotted  down  in  the  horizontal  lines  rep- 
resenting years,  each  divided  into  twelve  spaces  represent- 
ing months;  and  in  the  monthly  spaces  are  to  be  placed  the 
figures  denoting  the  values  of  the,  connective  variations  due 
to  the  respective  planets,  based  on  their  respective  distance 
variations  for  that  month.  Figures  denoting  approach  of  the 
Earth  and  a  planet,  or  accumulation  of  their  connective  sub- 
stance in  our  atmosphere,  are  given  in  full-faced  type,  and 
those  indicating  the  contrary  conditions  are  given  in  Roman 
type.  Table  II  on  the  preceding  page  gives  these  values  for 
the  four  great  planets  during  the  years  1888-91,  inclusive. 

By  table  II,  Jupiter  was  in  conjunction  with  the  Earth  May 
28,  1888;  in  opposition  with  it  December  11,  1888;  again  in  con- 
junction June  24,  1889;  again  in  opposition  January  12,  1890; 
again  in  conjunction  July  30,  1890;  again  in  opposition  Febru- 
ary 22,  1891 ;  and  again  in  conjunction  September  5,  1891.  Fol- 
lowing conjunction  up  to  opposition,  the  full  value  (435)  of 
Jupiter's  periodic  variation  is  distributed  among  the  interven- 
ing months  in  approximate  accordance  with  the  versed  sine 
approaches  towards  the  planet  for  each  month.  The  plain  type 
in  which  these  figures  are  given  indicate  recession  of  the 
two  planets  and  consequent  diminution  of  their  atmospheres. 
Following  opposition  up  to  conjunction,  the  full  value  of  the 
periodic  variation  of  Jupiter's  connexion  is  distributed  in  a 
similar  manner,  but  in  full-face  type  indicating  approach  of 
the  bodies;  and  consequent  accumulation  of  their  respective 
atmospheres. 

Saturn  was  in  conjunction  with  the  Earth  January  23,  1888; 
in  opposition  with  it  July  25,  1888;  in  conjunction  February 
5.  1889;  in  opposition  August  15,  1889;  in  conjunction  Feb- 
ruary IS,  1890;  in  opposition  August  27,  1890;  in  conjunction 
March  -1,  1891;  and  in  opposition  September  10,  1891.  The 

garded  as  being  in  conjunction  when  it  lies  in  a  straight  line  passing 
from  the  observer  through  the  Sun,  whether  the  planet  be  on  this  side 
or  the  other  of  that  luminary,  and  it  is  regarded  as  in  opposition  when 
it  lies  in  a  continuation  of  the  same  line  from  the  observer  outwards 
from  the  Sun.  In  the  former  sense  the  Sun  is  regarded  as  the  center; 
in  the  latter  the  Earth  is  so  regarded,  and  some  of  the  planets  conse- 
quently have  no  opposition  at  all.  This  view,  however,  is  unsuitable  to 
the  considerations  here  involved,  and,  therefore,  the  employment  of  the 
terms  in  the  first  sense  is  necessary,  if  they  are  employed  at  all. 


118] 


INTERPLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  WEATHER 


211 


full  value  of  its  periodic  variation  (150)  is  distributed  among 
the  intervening  monhs,  as  in  the  case  of  Jupiter.  And  sim- 
ilarly also  with  Uranus  and  Neptune. 

118.  Deductions  from  These  Variations. — It  will  be  ob- 
served that  in  any  particular  month  the  Earth  is  approaching 
some  of  the  planets,  while  from  others  it  is  receding;  the 
figures  denoting  the  former  being  positive  with  respect  to  the 
Earth's  atmosphere,  and  those  denoting  the  latter,  negative. 

The  quantitive  effect  of  all  four  planets  upon  our  atmos- 
phere in  any  month  will,  therefore,  be  the  algebraic  sum  of 
their  individual  values  for  that  month.  Following  are  the 
figures  for  the  same  four  years,  these  sums  in  the  case  of 
each  month  having  been  obtained;  a  thirteenth  column  being 
added,  in  which  is  placed  the  algebraic  sum  of  all  the  month- 
ly sums  of  each  year: 

Monthly  and  Yearly  Sums  of  the  Planetary  Connexion-Varia- 
tions Upon  the  Earth,  1888-91. 


£ 

o> 

1 

1 

s 

1 

X 

3 
• 

a 

1 

i 

2 

•£ 

t>» 

rt 

!>> 

fcfi 

ft 

1 

> 

O 

2h 

2 

* 

• 

a 

^ 

0 

rj 

p 

0) 

o 

0 

CD 

fe 

^ 

<^ 

S 

1-8 

<< 

02 

O 

fc 

H 

>< 

1888 

89|    82 

58 

24 

24 

62 

84 

84 

65 

38 

11    38 

65 

1889 

69 

78 

73 

54 

23 

16 

55 

74 

73 

59 

36J      5 

21 

1890 

17 

48 

63 

73 

60 

37  1      3 

30 

56 

68 

64  1    47 

36 

1891 

25 

6 

26 

51 

61 

60 

49 

24 

7 

40 

54 

62 

89 

It  is  seen  from  these  results  that  in  1888  the  Koman  fig- 
ures, extending  from  April  to  November,  indicate  a  relative 
drain  upon  our  atmosphere  during  that  time,  and,  according 
to  the  theory  here  advanced,  a  consequent  relative  deficiency 
of  atmospheric  electricity  and  precipitation.  In  1889  this  de- 
ficient or  dry  season  extends  from  May  to  the  folowing  Jan- 
uary, and  the  next  extends  from  July  1890  to  February  1891. 
The  figures  for  the  remaining  months  of  1888,  1889,  1890,  and 
from  January  to  September  1891,  indicate  relative  accumula- 
tion of  connective  substance  in  our  atmosphere  and  conse- 
ouent  relative  increase  of  electricity  and  precipitation. 

It.  is  further  to  be  observed  that  the  algebraic  sums  of  the 


212  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [119 

monthly  figures  for  1888  arid  1889,  as  given  in  the  thirteenth 
column,  indicate  that  the  drain  upon  our  atmosphere,  on  the 
whole,  has  been  in  excess  in  these  years,  and  that  conse- 
quently they  were  comparatively  dcy.  The  annual  results  for 
1890  and  1891,  similarly  obtained,  indicate  that  the  accumu- 
lation in  our  atmosphere  has  been  in  excess,  and  that  con- 
sequently these  years  were  comparatively  wet;.  And,  finally, 
it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  indicated  change  in  the  year 
column  from  dry  to  wet  occurs  about  the  time  of  sunspot 
minimum.  This  coincidence  in  just  the  one  instance  might 
of  course  have  arisen  out  of  mere  chance;  but  if  in  carrying 
the  calculation  back  some  forty  or  fifty  years  and  forwards 
some  thirty  or  forty  years  more,  from,  that  date,  it  be  found 
not  only  that  this  change  from  dry  to  wet  years  takes  place 
at,  or  very  nearly  at,  sunspot  minimum,  but  also  that  the 
opposite  change  of  wet  to  dry  years  always  takes  place  at, 
or  very  nearly  at,  sunspot  maximum— or,  in  other  words, 
that  the  longer  periods  of  the  planetary  connective  varia- 
tions which  are  now  on  the  point  of  being  determined  are 
almost  exactly  coincident  with  the  sunspot  periods — it  is 
absolutely  unthinkable  that  from  mere  chance  such  exact 
parallelism  of  the  two  phenomena  could  happen  for  so  long 
a  period. 

119.  Monthly  and  Yearly  Variations  of  the  Planetary  Fac- 
tor for  the  Period  1840-1923.— We  proceed  at  once  to  this 
test.  The  times  of  opposition  and  conjunction  of  each  of  the 
four  greater  planets  with  the  Earth  have  been  ascertained 
for  the  period  1840-1923,  inclusive,  in  precisely  the  same  man- 
ner as  has  been  done  for  1888-1891.*  The  negative  or  the 
positive  value  of  each  planet  has  been  determined  for  every 

*For  the  earlier  work,  the  writer  is  indebted  to  the  late  Mr.  G.  W. 
Hill  of  the  Nautical  Almanac  Office,  Washington,  D.  C.,  for  kindly  fur- 
nishing the  dates  of  the  oppositions  (i.  e.,  conjunctions  here)  of  Jupiter 
and  Saturn,  each  with  respect  to  the  Earth,  for  the  period  1726  to  1891, 
inclusive.  From  this  up  to  1904,  for  these  planets  and  also  for  Uranus 
and  Neptune  for  the  period  1840-1904,  the  times  of  opposition  and  con- 
junction have  been  computed  by  means  of  synodic  periods  of  the  planets 
with  respect  to  the  Earth,  and  by  giving  rough  values  to  the  equation  of 
the  center.  The  maximum  error  by  this  method  cannot  exceed  three  or  four 
days;  which,  in  the  case  of  the  two  smaller  of  the  four  planets,  and  in 
a  table  of  monthly  results,  is  safely  negligible.  For  the  present  work 
Prof.  W.  S.  Eichelberger  of  the  U.  S.  Naval  Observatory  has  kindly 
furnished  the  necessary  data  of  oppositions  and  conjunctions  of  all  four 
planets  for  nearly  all  the  rest  of  the  greater  period. 


119] 


INTERPLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  WEATHER 


213 


month  of  this  period,  the  algebraic  sum  of  these  for  each 
month  obtained  and  tabulated,  and  the  algebraic  sum  of  these 
monthly  sums  found  for  each  year  and  placed  in  the  year 
column.  A  fourteenth  colum'n  is  added  in  which  is  given 
the  maxima  and  minima  of  sunspots,  and  a  fifteenth  column 
in  which  is  shown  the  maxima  and  the  minima  of  the  con- 
nective variations  upon  the  Earth.  Following  are  the  results: 

TABLE   III. 

Monthly  and  Yearly  Sums  of  the  Planetary  Connexion-Varia- 
tions Upon  the  Earth  for  the  Period  1840-1923. 


January 

K 
L 

ft 

9 
(=( 

| 

5 

°C 
p< 
* 

& 
* 

<D 

1 

§ 
i-a 

ta 

•3 

September  1 

October 

November 

December 

V 

^ 

to 

1 
I 

Connexion 
Variation. 

1 

549 

1840 

122 

129  1103|  56 

7 

62]  97 

134 

132 

90 

27 

41 

98 

I 

565 

571 

1841 

93 

134 

136 

109 

52)  11 

60 

112 

136 

127 

94 

29  j  47 

574 

1 

1842 

40 

99|129|135 

113|  58 

12 

82 

128 

140 

120 

80 

12 

582) 

588 

1843 

20|  44 

100 

136 

141 

110 

57 

14 

82 

125 

148 

125 

74 

Max. 

581 

558 

1844 

76 

11 

52 

106 

131 

127 

95 

47 

15 

86 

124 

135 

111 

Min. 

536 

536 

1845 

111 

65 

0 

60 

105 

123 

114 

90 

44 

12 

68 

109 

171 

521 

494J 

1846 

125  j  114|  74 

19 

45 

94 

114 

115 

87 

39 

20 

69 

73 

449  j 

419 

1847 

100 

109 

94  1  52 

5 

44 

81 

95 

95 

72 

32 

17 

42 

366| 

327 

1848 

55  1  82 

88 

79 

50 

15 

29 

61 

76 

74 

56 

31 

42 

Max. 

1298 

1849 

2 

34 

60 

69 

66|  46 

21 

8 

32 

57 

65 

59 

77 

280 

268 

1850 

40 

19 

20 

49 

60 

60 

48 

28 

3 

22 

46 

57 

84 

266 

267 

1851 

GO  46 

32 

3 

27 

43 

60 

60 

51 

26 

10 

35 

81 

Min. 

283 

303 

1852 

53J  68 

57 

45 

15 

16 

41 

68 

71 

64 

37 

6 

65 

320 

1853 

31  59 

76 

71 

57 

26 

11 

42 

71 

84 

76 

50 

14 

343 

[3621 

1854 

9 

31 

66 

85 

82  66 

321   9 

47 

81 

95 

80 

41 

357 

|423 

1855 

45   0 

47 

78 

94|  91 

75 

38|  18|  55 

98J 

104(103 

1 

440 

|448 

| 

1856 

92 

57 

16 

29 

72 

101 

106 

91 

49 

3 

57 

95 

128 

Min. 

486 

521 

1857 

112J107 

76 

36 

31 

84|120 

125 

103 

58 

0 

54|136 

214 


THT;  CONNECTIVE  THEORY 
TABLE   III. — (Continued). 


[119 


>> 

3 
1 

February 

,d 
g 

03 

9 

fe 

o> 

a 
1 

£ 

bo 
S 
<! 

September 

October 

.  .1 

November 

December 

i 

>H 

Sunspots 

Connexion 
Variation. 

|529| 

i 

[6091 

1858 

98 

122 

123 

96 

36 

31 

86 

116 

124 

89 

62 

1 

34 

531 

531 

1859 

63 

108 

128|123 

83|  26|  40 

90 

120 

125 

102 

54 

0 

I 

|549 

1860 

6 

67 

109 

131 

119 

83 

34 

34 

92 

129 

134 

107 

53 

Max. 

554 

550 

1861 

58 

21 

88 

116 

123 

111 

73 

18 

41 

96 

128 

130 

97 

Max. 

543 

538 

1862 

99 

49 

32 

74(116 

127 

110 

67 

12 

44 

97 

125 

124 

525 

517 

1863 

127 

90 

42 

30 

83 

113 

121 

101 

60 

9 

49 

97 

116 

518 

502 

1864 

120 

119 

84 

49 

33 

84 

112 

116 

96 

57 

4 

50 

80 

489 

472 

1865 

96 

119|112 

78 

34 

25 

77 

105 

112 

94 

54 

5 

33 

466 

1866 

58 

90 

111 

101 

75 

31 

26 

75 

100 

108 

90 

58 

9 

465 

434 

1867 

8 

48  78 

105 

89 

77 

37 

15 

61 

89 

94 

84 

83 

Min. 

442 

' 

397 

1868 

58 

41 

22 

65 

80 

93 

81 

48 

8 

41 

74 

94 

89 

381 

362 

1869 

88 

60 

24 

19 

44 

74 

82 

73 

52 

18 

25 

65 

100 

362 

3391 

1870 

81 

79 

61 

35|   6 

30 

62 

77  1  76 

58 

36   5 

72 

337 

J325 

! 

1871 

43 

61 

89 

74 

51 

14 

25 

53 

71 

76 

62 

38 

7 

Max. 

1 

324 

1872 

1 

36 

60 

77  80 

52 

18 

16 

45 

68 

76 

65 

54 

Min. 

322 

330 

1873 

43 

9 

26 

54 

76 

79 

.62 

33 

1 

34 

62 

76 

105 

338 

347 

1874 

74 

61 

30 

22 

53  79 

84 

69 

38 

2 

32 

63 

87 

358 

376 

1875 

79 

81 

68 

35 

19 

53 

82 

90 

77 

48 

7 

30 

83 

402 

438 

1876 

67  j  92 

95 

78 

40  21 

77 

89 

97  86 

55 

13 

66 

|442 

1877 

31 

73 

99 

105 

90)  44 

9 

61 

93 

108 

102 

69 

0 

461 

481 

1878 

19 

39 

82 

108 

114 

93 

45|  16 

70 

101 

116 

106 

53 

Min. 

508 

|544| 

1879 

71 

28 

47 

84 

123 

129 

106 

55 

11 

69 

114 

131 

120 

! 

543 

544 

1880 

118 

81 

19 

32 

89 

123 

130 

111 

59 

5 

72 

112 

127 

556 

579  j 

1881 

128 

132 

76 

31 

37 

98 

130 

137 

109 

68   4 

70 

138 

572 

575  1 

1882 

114 

139 

127 

90]  28 

40  101 

136 

138 

105 

55  14 

63 

Mar. 

119]          INTERPLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  WEATHER  215- 

TABLE   III.— (Continued). 


K 

3 

a 

February 

£ 

c 

p. 
<! 

£ 

X 

• 
1 

j>» 

"3 

1-3 

1 
•< 

September 

October 

November 

December 

I 

{x 

Sunspots 

Connexion 
Variation. 

|555| 

1    15411 

1883 

70 

117|131 

116 

81  26  38 

98|124 

126 

100 

55 

0 

Max. 

|536 

1884 

14 

90 

122 

131 

110 

66 

3 

55 

97)117 

119 

92 

•56 

523 

j 

521 

1885 

43|  24 

90 

117  124 

101 

65 

6 

56 

93 

114 

108 

101 

|478 

1 

446 

1886 

72 

29|  26 

70 

101 

104 

88 

53 

4 

47 

91 

106 

101 

1439 

408 

1887 

100  70 

25 

27 

74  |  95 

95 

76 

41 

1 

48  1  79 

85 

381 

357 

1 

1888 

89  82 

58  24 

24!  62 

84 

84 

65 

38 

1 

38  65 

336| 

318| 

1889   69)  78 

73 

54 

23 

16 

55 

74 

73 

59 

36 

5 

21 

Min. 

1 

301 

1890 

17  48  63 

731  60 

37 

3|  30 

56 

68 

64 

47 

36 

290 

ij 

J277i 

1 

1891 

25 

61  26 

51|  61 

60 

49|  24   71  40  54 

62 

89| 

Min. 

I    |280 

12911 

1892 

561  45 

16 

18 

42  57 

62!  61 

40 

11  22 

47 

105 

316| 

|345 

1893 

68 

74 

65 

37 

3 

33 

62 

80 

79 

61 

26 

4 

98 

356 

1894 

45 

65 

83 

86 

57 

20  1  25 

57 

85 

91 

79 

44 

25 

Max. 

384 

I 

I4J4 

1895 

3 

47  80 

97 

94|  65  31 

22 

62 

98 

108 

95 

26 

4511 

1468 

1896 

59|   7  47 

92|113J10fj  80  j  30 

27 

71 

106 

115 

83 

|485 

{ 

501 

1897 

100 

68]   8 

47 

91|116|114  90 

43 

32 

81 

120 

102 

507 

| 

524 

1 

1898  123 

99  52|   7 

65J107|128|115 

81 

21 

45 

94 

111 

1 

|532 

538 

1899 

127 

125 

96 

45 

7|  6211071129 

121 

86|  26 

52 

93. 

| 

538) 

548 

I 

1900 

102(132 

128 

95 

39|  22j  78  113  127 

113 

79 

16 

52 

Max, 

1543 

1901 

49  100 

124|128j  98 

44 

21  81  114 

126 

111 

78 

12 

Min. 

539J 

5251 

1902 

8 

59  102 

121|117|  90  36J  23 

87 

120 

128 

103 

56 

519 

I 

I    |516 

1903 

58 

3 

60 

105 

122 

114 

81|  31 

32 

91130122  93 

506 

493  1   mf'nA 

1904 

94 

47 

13 

70 

107 

116 

102 

62 

23 

24  67 

103  158 

463 

|462| 

1905 

115  |  93 

61 

14 

40 

85 

109 

105 

73 

36 

17|  65 

111 

425 

407 

1906 

97 

1001  86 

53 

7, 

42 

85 

96 

92 

65 

27 

20 

44 

Max. 

I 

403 

1366 

1907 

51)  84  1  91 

83 

54 

20 

26 

65 

84 

88|  67J  36 

17 

216 


THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY 

TABLE    111.— (Concluded). 


[120 


0 

1 

February 

,=3 
£ 

I 

fe 

I 

1 

"M 
•§ 

September 

October 

November 

December 

1 

Sunspots 

Connexion 
Variation. 

1351 

1908 

6 

41 

70 

83 

78 

53 

20 

21 

58 

76 

79 

65 

52 

325 

334 

1909 

26 

13 

34 

63 

76]  75 

50 

23 

16 

50 

66 

75 

101, 

343 

293 

1910 

62 

57 

17 

38 

61 

69 

62 

47 

16 

8 

30 

53 

66 

292 

I 

285 

1911 

60 

61 

51 

29 

30  53 

61 

59 

50 

30 

2 

21 

63; 

Min. 

|316 

308 

1912 

51 

61 

63 

75 

40 

5 

35 

55]  68 

67 

62 

21 

13 

314 

1913 

14 

41 

58 

70 

70 

48 

13 

24 

53 

74 

81 

62 

20 

Min. 

321 

340 

1914 

27 

10 

43 

64 

74 

78 

54 

17 

27 

58 

79 

90 

59 

356 

391 

1915 

76 

26 

7 

46 

72 

87 

83 

63 

33 

4 

51 

82 

152 

410 

421 

1916 

101 

101 

71 

4 

51 

86 

93 

92 

63 

32 

8 

55 

85 

455 

484 

1917 

93 

110 

101 

70 

18 

39 

S0|107 

114 

99 

45 

14 

78 

502 

527 

1918 

70 

104 

122 

111 

71 

10 

54 

98 

125 

123 

93 

34 

39 

Max. 

533 

1919 

32 

78 

111 

121 

107J  65 

19 

40 

93 

121 

125 

103 

51 

539 

539 

1920 

57 

7 

70 

114 

132 

119 

82 

15 

48 

102 

127 

125 

80  1 

Max. 

542 

522 

1921 

98 

42 

2 

77 

113 

128 

115 

77 

10 

55 

101 

123 

ioa 

536 

519 

1922 

121 

93 

43 

17 

63 

105 

121 

111 

74 

28 

35 

91 

136 

534 

481 

1923 

119 

124 

107J  58 

3J  61 

105 

119 

113 

66 

14 

42 

31 

120.  Connection  of  the  Periods  of  Variation  of  the  Plan- 
etary Factor  with  the  Sunspot  Periods. — A  glance  along  the 
thirteenth  and  fourteenth  columns  of  the  foregoing  table 
shows  us  at  once  the  almost  exact  accordance  for  the  entire 
period  of  the  indicated  changes  of  the  wet  and  dry  years  with 
the  sunspot  changes.  Taking  excess  of  accumulation  of  con- 
nective substance  upon  the  Earth  (indicated  in  the  table  by 
the  heavier  figures) to  mean  excess  of  precipitation,  etc.,  in  our 
atmosphere,  we  observe  in  the  year  column  that  all  the  years 
in  the  entire  84-year  period  which  are  included  in  a  forward 
direction  from  the  maxima  to  the  minima  of  sunspots  are  in- 


120]          INTERPLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  WEATHER  217 

ciicated  to  be  dry,  with  the  exception  of  five;  and  all  the  years 
included  in  the  same  direction  from  the  minima  to  the  max- 
ima of  sunspots  are  indicated  to  be  wet,  WITHOUT  A  SIN- 
GLE EXCEPTION.  In  other  words,  the  actual  change 
from  drain  to  accumulation  of  the  planetary  bond-substance 
in  our  atmosphere,  as  indicated  by  its  algebraic  sums  for  the 
different  years,  occurs  almost  exactly  at  the  time  of  sunspot 
minimum,  with  the  sole  exception  of  the  minimum  of  1856, 
which  was  three  years  behind  the  change;  and  every  sunspot 
maximum  without  exception  takes  place  at  the  change  from 
accumulation  to  drain  of  the  supposed  bond-substance  in  our 
atmosphere,  similarly  indicated.  Besides,  the  year  1856,  in 
which  the  discrepancy  does  occur,  is  itself  anomalous,  as 
there  were  but  very  little  less  spots  on  the  Sun  during  that 
year  than  during  the  three  or  four  years  immediately  preced- 
ing it.  This  remarkable  coincidence  alone,  if  there  were  no 
other  evidence  whatever  in  its  favor,  is  really  quite  sufficient 
to  establish  the  reality  of  inter-planetary  bonds,  which  is  the 
principal  factor  of  the  connective  theory. 

Now  these  are  the  longer  periods  of  the  connective  var- 
iations upon  the  Earth  which  we  have  been  in  search  of,  and 
which,  as  alerady  stated,  stand  independent  of,  and 
unaffected  by,  any  of  the  other  connective  factors  but  the 
lunar;  and  the  evidence  which  they  furnish  in  support  of  the 
truth  of  the  essential  supposition  of  the  new  theory  is  sur- 
prisingly strong  and  clear.  The  most  fastidious  critic  would 
hardly  contend  that,  for  a  period  of  eighty-four  years,  the 
changes  from  excess  to  deficiency  in  our  atmosphere  of  a 
supposed  connective  substance,  extending  in  bonds  or  cords 
between  our  world  and  the  other  planets,  would  occur  at  sun- 
spot  maximum,  and  the  changes  from  deficiency  to  excess  at 
sunspot  minimum — all  out  of  mere  chance;  for  the  probabil- 
ities appear  to  be  vastly  against  such  chance  coincidences  in 
this  case,.  There  must  be  a  real  connection  between  the 
quantitive  changes  of  the  supposed  material  inter-planetary 
connexions  and  the  sunspot  changes  with  which  they  are  thus 
seen  to  coincide.  This  is  undeniable.  And  not  here  only  but 


218  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [121 

in  other  fields  as  well  shall  we  find  equally  valuable  and 
incontrovertible  evidences  supporting  this  conviction. 

121.  Coincidence  of  the  Variations  of  the  Planetary  Facxor 
with  the  Periods  of  Atmospheric  Precipitation. — In  the  first 
place  it  may  be  well  to  show  that  there  is  an  actual  deficiency 
of  atmospheric  electricity  and  precipitation  in  the  indicated 
dry  years,  and  an  actual  excess  of  these  elements  in  the  in- 
dicated wet  years,  when  a  certain  amount  of  lag  of  the  actual 
after  the  indicated  weather  is  taken  into  consideration.  It 
is  some  forty  years  now  since  inquiries  were  started  in  this 
department  of  Nature,  and  the  evidence  they  yield  appears 
to  be  no  less  voluminous  than  it  is  valuable  and  conclusive. 

Prof.  Balfour  Stewart,  reviewing  the  results  hitherto  ar- 
rived at,  dealt  extensively  with  a  supposed  connection  be- 
tween the  height  of  rivers  and  the  number  of  sunspots.  He 
found  that  the  Nile  agrees  with  European  rivers  and  exhib- 
its a  maximum  at  about  the  time  of  maximum  sunspots.* 
Now  the  tabular  wet  years  are  indicated  as  following  mimi- 
mum  sunspots;  and  if  (for  reasons  presently  to  be  considered) 
we  estimate  the  lag  of  the  actual  precipitation  after  the  time 
indicated  as  between  two  and  three  years  on  the  average,  the 
wet  periods  predicated  by  the  tabular  figures  would  almost 
precisely  correspond  to  the  periods  in  which  the  spots  were 
in  excess,  and  the  actual  dry  periods  to  those  in  which  the 
spots  were  deficient. 

Dr.  Meldrum,  from  a  comparison  of  Wolfe's  sunspot  num- 
bers with  the  rainfall  at  Madras,  1816-1877;  Edinburgh,  1824- 
1872 ;  and  Paris,  1824-1872,  concludes  that  there  is  an  intimate 
connection  between  sunspots  and  rainfall.  He  shows  that  in 
a  great  many  places  there  is  a  greater  rainfall  during  years 
of  maximum  than  during  years  of  minimum  sunspots,  and 
that  this  phenomenon  repeats  itself  from  one  cycle  to  another. 

Mr.  Henry  Blanford,  in  the  course  of  a  general  investiga- 
tion of  the  rainfall  of  India  t  especially  considers  the  Car- 
natic  province,  consisting  of  the  plain  below  the  Eastern 

*Nature,  25,  237;  25,  269;  26,  448-9. 

flndian  Meteorological  Memoirs,  Vol.  III.,  Part  I;  Nature,  July  7. 
1887. 


121 J          INTERPLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  WEATHER  219 

Ghauts,  occupying  the  southeast  of  the  peninsula,  and  ex- 
tending from  Cape  Comorin  to  the  mouth  of  the  Kistna.  Its 
area  is  about  72,000  square  miles,  with  the  town  of  Madras 
situated  nearly  midway  along  the  coast.  The  data  are  fur- 
nished by  the  registers  of  this  and  thirty-nine  other  stations 
pretty  evenly  distributed;  most  of  the  records  extending  back 
to  1864,  This  province  is  partially  relieved  from  the  local 
vicissitudes  of  rainfall  characterizing  the  summer  months  of 
Central  and  Northern  India;  so  that  the  annual  fluctuations 
ot  the  Carnatic  rainfall  often  differs  widely  from  that  of  other 
provinces  in  the  peninsula.  The  results  arrived  at  by  Mr. 
Blanford  are  as  follows:  "The  rainfall  reached  a  minimum 
in  1867"  (year  after  sunspot  minimum),  "then  rose  steadily 
to  a  maximum  in  1872,"  (one  year  after  sunspot  maximum), 
"and  after  a  drop  in  1873,  and  partial  recovery  in  the  following 
year,  fell  rapidly  to  a  second  minimum  in  1876"  (two  years 
before  sunspot  minimum).  "From  1877  to  1881,  it  oscillated 
considerably,  but  thereafter  rose  again,  steadily,  to  a  second 
maximum  in  1884"  (one  year  after  sunspot  maximum),  "drop- 
ping again  in  1885  to  something  below  the  average."  And 
this,  he  justly  concludes,  "affords,  at  least,  a  very  high  prob- 
ability that  the  apparent  undecennial  fluctuation  is  no  chance 
phenomenon." 

Prof.  Cleveland  Abbe  says:  "If  in  general  the  rainfall 
is  above  the  mean  in  the  years  of  sunspot  maxima,  and  be- 
low the  mean  in  years  of  sunspot  minima,  then  we  must  have 
the  following  equation: 

S— s./s'— S  =  R— r/r'— R, 

where  large  S  is  the  mean  value  of  the  sunspot  frequency 
for  the  whole  period  under  investigation;  small  s  is  the 
mean  value  for  the  period  during  which  the  sunspot  frequency 
is  below  the  mean;  small  s'  is  the  value  for  the  period  during 
which  the  sunspot  frequency  is  above  the  mean;  R,  r,  r',  the 
corresponding  rainfall  for  these  years  for  which  S,  s,  s',  hold 
good.  That  the  frequency  of  sunspots  has  a  simple  ratio  to 
the  rainfall  is  now  evident  from  the  fact  that  the  above  equa- 
tion holds  good  approximately  for  fifty-four  stations  in  Great 


220  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [122 

Britain,  and  thirty-four  in  America  for  the  interval  1824  to 
1867.  During  this  interval  the  rainfall  was  in  excess  when 
the  spots  were  in  excess,  and  deficient  when  the  spots  were 
deficient.  The  excess  was  .90  of  an  inch  in  England  and  1.13 
inches  in  America;  and  the  deficiencies  were  .75  inch  in 
England  and  .94  in  America."* 

Prof.  Cleveland  Abbe  shows  us  then  that  the  wet  periods 
which  the  movements  of  the  planets  and  their  connexions 
predicate,  according  to  the  new  theory,  are  actually  wetter 
than  the  average,  and  that  the  dry  periods,  similarly  predi- 
cated, are  actually  drier  than  the  average — in  England  and 
America  from  1824  to  1867. 

Also  in  Nature,  88,  449,  almost  exactly  parallel  curves  of 
sunspots  and  rainfall  are  given  for  the  period  1841  to  1910. 

122.  Relation  of  the  Periods  of  Variation  of  the  Planetary 
Factors  to  the  Periods  of  Atmospheric  Pressure. — With  re- 
spect to  the  lagging  of  the  actual  weather  after  the  planetary 
and  solar  phenomena  which  indicate  it,  Mr.  Frederick  Cham- 
bers, summarizing  the  sunspot  studies  of  Charles  Chambers, 
Brown,  Hill,  Archibald,  Blanford,  and  Meldrum,  and  extend- 
ing their  investigations  in  still  greater  detail,  finds  that  the 
epochs  of  maximum  and  minimum  barometric  pressure  lagged 
behind  the  corresponding  epochs  of  minimum  and  maximum 
solar-spotted  area  at  an  interval  varying  from  about  six 
months  to  two  and  a  half  years.  His  conclusions  in  this 
respect  are  briefly  (1)  that  variations  of  the  solar-spotted 
area  are  succeeded  many  months  afterwards  by  corresponding 
abnormal  barometric  variations,  and  (2)  that  abnormal  baro- 
metric variations  in  the  tropics  travel  at  a  very  slow  rate 
from  west  to  east,  ariving  at  westerly  stations  several  months 
before  they  reach  more  easterly  ones.f 

From  this  and  from  the  researches  of  Prof.  Balfour  Stewart 
and  others,  it  appears  that  the  lag  of  the  weather  after  its 
indications  is  by  no  means  constant,  but  varies  at  different 
times  and  places.  The  foregoing  results  arrived  at  by  Mr. 

*Account  of  Progress  in  Meteorology  in  1879-81,  p.  52 
tNature,  23,  84-110;  Cleveland  Abbe,  Account  of  Progress  in  Meteor- 
ology in  1882,  p.  80. 


123]          INTERPLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  WEATHER  221 

Frederick  Chambers  show  that,  when  alowance  is  made  ror 
the  lag,  the  maximum  barometric  pressure  corresponds  to  the 
minimum  of  sunspots,  or  the  lowest  ebb  of  connective  sub- 
ttance  in  our  atmosphere,  and  the  minimum  barometric  pres- 
sure to  the  maximum  accumulation  of  connective  substance 
in  our  atmosphere.  The  probable  explanation  of  this  (as 
subsequent  considerations  furnish  excellent  grounds  for  be- 
lieving) is  that  the  excess  of  connective  substance  in  our 
atmosphere  enables  the  rarer  vapors  and  gases  to  ascend 
therein  to  a  greater  elevation,  where  the  attraction  of  gravi- 
tation is  less;  and  that,  when  the  excess  is  withdrawn  and 
the  connective  atmosphere  sinks  below  its  normal  density, 
the  vapors  and  gases  descend  where  gravitation  is  more 
powerful  and  so  cause  a  maximum  barometric  pressure. 

Here,  then,  is  a  complete  parallelism  of  the  indicated  wet 
and  dry  years,  not  only  with  the  sunspot  changes,  but  with 
the  actually  observed  periods  of  excessive  and  deficient  pre- 
cipitation and  the  periods  of  maximum  and  minimum  baro- 
metric pressure.  This  is  additional  incontrovertible  evidence 
of  the  existence  of  material  interplanetary  connexions,  on  the 
basis  of  which  alone  these  indicated  wet  and  dry  periods 
have  been  determined. 

123.  Coincidence  of  the  Periods  of  Variations  of  the  Plan- 
etary Factor  wit|h  the  Periods  of  Atmospheric  Electricity. — 
But  the  parallelism  may  be  pushed  still  further.  We  know 
that  there  is  an  almost  complete  correspondence  between 
the  number  of  auroras  and  the  relative  extent  of  black  spots 
on  the  Sun  as  far  back  as  reliable  observations  extend,  the 
curve  of  the  one  being  almost  exactly  parallel  with  that  of  the 
other  for  more  than  a  hundred  years.*  And  as  to  the  nature  of 
the  aurora,  Mr.  W.  S.  Jevons,  after  describing  the  five  auroras 
of  August,  1882,  says: 

"I  venure  to  make  the  suggestion  that  these  ocrruscations 
arise  from  highly  tenuous  matter  (in  what  Mr.  Crookes  calls 
the  radiant  state),  projected  through  the  higher  part  of  the 
atmosphere.  My  belief  is  that  during  the  auroras  described, 
puffs,  as  it  were,  of  radiant  matter  were  discharged  at  great 
elevations  above  the  earth's  surf  ace."  t 

*Frof.  Balfour  Stewart,  Nature,  23,  252. 
tNature,  23.  149. 


222  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [121 

H.  Fritz,  in  a  very  complete  summary  of  our  present  knowl- 
edge regarding  the  aurora,*  quotes  from  Cramer  that  the 
auroras  change  themselves  into  clouds,  the  whole  heavens 
being  covered  with  them  if  the  aunoras  last  for  a  sufficiently 
long  time.  Also  that  Stevenson  at  Dunse,  Scotland,  found  the 
annual  frequency  of  cirrus  clouds  to  run  parallel  with  the 
frequency  of  auroras;  that  Winnecke,  from  observations  at 
Pulkowa,  concludes  that  the  cirrus  must  be  considered  as  the 
agent  of  the  aurora  phenomena;  that  Weber  and  Klein  and 
others  give  data  to  show  that  the  times  of  greatest  frequency 
of  auroras  and  sunspots  are  also  the  times  of  greatest  fre- 
quency of  polar  bands;  that  similar  parallelisms  connect  the 

| 

sunspots  with  the  height  of  rivers,  the  rainfall,  and  numerous 
other  phenomena;  that,  in  fact,  the  parallelism  between  svery 
form  of  atmospheric,  phenomena  and  the  solar  spots,  shows 
the  connection  to  be  a  real  one,  although  the  rationale  of  the 
connection  is  not  yet  made  clear,  f 

It  is  known  further  even  that  the  constitution  of  the  ai- 
mosphere  is  variable,  higher  percentages  of  some  ingredients 
being  present  at  certain  times  than  at  others;  and  Regnault 
suspected  rightly  when  he  declared  it  deceptive  to  regard  the 
air  as  of  a  constant  constitution  and  a  fit  standard  for  the 
specific  gravity  of  gases. J 

124.  The  Wet  and  the  Dry  Seasons  of  the  Year.— Still  an- 
other feature  of  table  III  is  the  wet  and  the  dry  seasons  of  the 
year.  In  1848,  e.  g.,  the  first  half  of  the  year  is  indicated 
to  be  dry  and  the  latter  half  wet.  In  subsequent  years  the 
dry  season  pushes  more  and  more  towards  the  latter  half  of 
the  year,  and  the  wet  into  the  first.  In  1858  the  first  half 
of  the  year  is  again  dry  and  the  last  half  wet.  In  1866  these 
seasons  again  change  places.  And  so  on;  a  complete  revo- 
lution of  a  wet  or  a  dry  season  from  a  certain  portion  of  the 
year  back  again  to  the  same  portion,  taking,  on  the  average, 
nearly  twelve  years.  It  may  be  noticed  also  that  the  interval 

*Das  Polarlicht,  Leipsic,   1881. 

fProf.  Cleveland  Abbe,  Account  of  Progress  in  Meteorology  in  1879-81, 
pp.  80-81. 

jSee  Jolly's  investigations,  Zeitschrift  Oesterreichischen  Gessell- 
schaft  fur  Meteorologie,  14,  228. 


125]          INTERPLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  WEATHER  223 

during  which  a  certain  half  of  the  year  changes  from  wet  to 
dry,  corresponds  to  a  dry  period  of  years,  and  that  the  inter- 
val from  dry  to  wet  is  contemporary  with  a  wet  period  of 
years.  The  wet  and  the  dry  periods  of  years  are,  therefore, 
dependent  on,  and  derived  from,  the  wet  and  the  dry  seasons. 
If,  however,  observations  corroborating  these  indicated  wet 
and  dry  seasons,  as  in  the  case  of  the  indicated  wet  and  dry 
periods  of  years,  are  looked  for,  little,  if  any,  will  be  found — 
lor  the  following  reasons: 

First,  as  already  intimated,  the  precipitation  indicated  for 
a  certain  time  may  lag  behind  that  time  for  several  months, 
the  period  being  various  at  various  times  and  places.  Sec- 
ond, present  observations  cover  but  a  very  small  portion  of 
the  Earth's  surface  (a  mere  fraction  of  even  these  being 
easily  accessible  to  one  person),  and  this  portion  is  mainly 
removed  from  the  tropics,  within  which  the  indicated  vari- 
ations would  theoretically  occur  more  regularly.  Third,  both 
regular  and  iregular  causes,  such  as  wind  and  ocean  currents, 
and  position  with  respect  to  mountain  ranges  and  elevation, 
would,  to  a  very  great  extent,  smooth  down  the  differences 
of  such  short  periods  in  most  places  where  observations  are 
made.  And,  fourth,  the  effects  of  the  other  factors  of  the 
connective  variations  upon  the  -Earth.  Indeed,  the  most  pow- 
erful factors  of  the  connective  variations  upon  our  planet  yet 
remain  to  be  considered.  But  as  already  stated,  the  effects 
of  these,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  lunar  factor,  go 
through  a  complete  cycle  in  almost  exactly  one  year;  so 
that,  while  they  alone  completely  mask  the  indicated  plan- 
etary factor,  they  produce  no  measurable  effect  whatever 
upon  the  planetary  periods.  The  nature  and  effects  of  these 
factors  will  now  very  shortly  be  considered. 

125.  Lagging  of  the  Actual  Weather.— With  regard  to  the 
first  of  the  foregoing  reasons,  it  may  be  said  that  the  cause 
of  the  lagging  of  the  actual  weather  behind  the  indicated 
weather  would  very  probably  be  that  the  withdrawal  or  ac- 
cumulation of  a  certain  amount  of  connective  substance  would 
be  required  to  effect  a  change  of  the  normal  atmospheric 


224  THE   CONNECTIVE   THEORY  [126 

conditions.  These  normal  conditions  are  indicated  in  the 
table  for  any  month  or  year  by  a  cipher,  or  zero.  Then,  if 
we  suppose  that,  in  this  normal  state  of  the  atmosphere,  it 
required  a  withdrawal  or  an  accumulation  of  a  quantity  of 
connective  substance  denoted  by  about  200  on  the  scale  of 
the  figures  of  table  III  to  effect  a  corresponding  measurable 
change  in  the  actual  weather,  we  observe  that  this  quantitive 
accumulation  or  withdrawal  would  require,  in  the  case  of  the 
seasons,  from  three  to  four  months,  and  in  the  case  of  the 
periods,  from  three  to  four  years;  more  being  required  in 
such  years  as  1871  than  in  1884. 

The  probable  reason  why  such  a  quantitive  variation  of 
the  connective  substance  would  be  necessary  to  produce  an 
appreciable  effect  on  the  actual  precipitation  is  that,  during 
the  first  part  of  the  season  or  period  of  accumulation,  the 
capacity  of  the  atmosphere  to  hold  vapors  in  suspension  would 
increase  up  to  a  certain  limit,  owing  to  the  increased  volume 
and  quantity  of  connective  substance  it  contains;  and  that, 
during  the  first  part  of  the  period  of  drain,  the  capacity  of 
the  atmosphere  would  diminish  in  this  respect  down  to  a 
certain  limit,  owing  to  the  diminution  of  its  connective  sub- 
stance. So  that,  from  the  normal  amount  of  connective  sub- 
stance in  the  atmosphere  up  to  the  one  and  down  to  the 
other,  the  normal  precipitation  would  be  likely  to  prevail. 

126,  T|he  Solar  Factor  of  the  Connective  Variation. — The 
other  factors  of  the  connective  variation  upon  the  Earth, 
which  yet  remain  to  be  considered  may  now  be  computed. 
As  already  stated  in  article  115,  it  was  necessary  for  the 
determination  of  the  longer  periods  of  the  connective  varia- 
tions that  the  planetary  factor  should  alone  be  computed;  the 
consideration  of  the  other  factors  being  left  for  a  subsequent 
occasion.  This  occasion  is  now  at  hand;  and  the  variations 
of  the  remaining  connexions  upon  the  Earth  are  to  be  de- 
termined as  nearly  as  practicable. 

Taking  first  the  Earth's  primary  connexion  with  the  Sun, 
there  is,  from  the  eccentricity  of  the  Earth's  orbit,  a  linear 
variation  of  about  3,000,000  miles  in  a  period  of  six  months. 


126]          INTERPLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  WEATHER  225 

This  multiplied  by  the  sectional  area  of  the  connexion  at  the 
Earth's  surface,  in  order  to  obtain  the  volume-variation,  and 
also  by  the  relative  density  of  the  connexion,  obtains  the 
mass-variation  in  the  period.  But  what  is  the  relative  den- 
sity of  a  primary  with  respect  to  that  of  a  secondary  con- 
nexion? At  the  present  stage  of  our  inquiry  this  question 
cannot  receive  a  definite  answer.  The  best  that  can  be  done 
is  to  assign  a  probable  value,  less  than  which  the  density 
of  the  solar  connexion  upon  the  Earth,  with  respect  to  that 
of  its  secondary  connexion,  can  not  be. 

According  to  the  connective  theory,  as  well  as  to  the  neb- 
ular hypothesis  also,  the  outermost  planets  were  the  first 
born  of  the  solar  family.  Each  of  the  planets  as  they  suc- 
cessively came  into  existence,  appropriated  from  the  Sun 
a  primary  connexion,  the  sectional  massiveness  of  which,  it 
may  reasonably  be  supposed,  depended  upon  the  masses  of 
the  respective  planets  between  which  and  the  Sun  the  con- 
nexions extended;  and  each  planet  also  appropriated  a  cer- 
tain portion  of  the  primary  connexion  of  each  of  the  pre- 
viously existing  planets  for  a  secondary  connexion  between 
the  two.  What  this  portion  is,  is  the  point  to  be  determined; 
and  the  limit  which  it  cannot  reasonably  exceed  may  be  rep- 
resented by  the  fraction  having  the  mass  of  the  appropriating 
planet,  for  the  numerator  and  that  of  the  Sun  for  the  denom- 
inator. Several  reasons  might  be  assigned  for  a  smaller 
value  of  this  portion  of  the  previously  existing  solar  con- 
nexions which  the  new-born  planet  appropriates — such  as  that 
the  restraining  functions  of  the  solar  connexions  would  re- 
quire, and,  therefore,  retain  a  proportionately  greater  share 
of  their  substance  thanjrtie  functions  of  the  portions  forming 
the  secondary  connexion  between  the  planets  would  require, 
the  latter  being  of  a  far  lighter  nature;  but  there  appears  to 
be  no  reason  whatever  for  assigning  a  greater  value  to  it. 

Thus,  when  the  Earth  first  separated  from  the  bosom  of 
the  parent  Sun,  it  would  have  a  solar  connexion,  the  sectional 
density  of  which  would  be  to  that  of  Jupiter's  solar  connex- 
ion, e.  g.,  as  the  Earth's  mass  is  to  that  of  Jupiter;  and  it 


226  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [127 

would  also  appropriate  a  portion  of  the  solar  connexion  of 
Jupiter  not  greater,  at  most,  than  1/326,800  of  its  entire  sub- 
stance, the  mass  of  the  Earth  having  a  ratio  to  that  of  the 
Sun  of  1  to  326,800.  Now,  if  we  call  the  Earth's  mass  unity, 
Jupiter's  mass  will  be  about  312,«and  the  sectional  massive- 
iiess  of  these  solar  connexions,  at  equal  distances  from  the 
Sun,  will  also  be  in  the  same  ratio,  respectively.  At  the 
Sun's  surface  the  sectional  density  of  the  Earth's  solar  con- 
nexion is,  therefore,  1,  and  of  Jupiter's  solar  connexion,  312. 
Then  the  sectional  density  of  the  portion  of  the  latter  con- 
nexion which  the  new-born  Earth  would  appropriate  for  a 
secondary  connexion  between  the  two  planets  would  be 
1/326,800  of  312,  or  1/1048  of  the  density  of  the  Earth's  solar 
connexion.  It  may  therefore  be  concluded  that,  for  equal  lin- 
ear units,  the  density  or  mass  of  the  connexion  between  the 
Earth  and  the  Sun  is  at  least  a  thousand  times  greater  at 
the  Earth's  surface  than  that  of  the  connexion  between  the 
Earth  and  Jupiter. 

Thus  the  mass-variation  caused  in  our  atmosphere  by  the 
solar  connexion  in  a  period  of  six  months  would  be  3,000,000 
X  49,000,000X1,048  —  154  XlO15  cubic  miles,  or  rather  one-half 
of  this,  as  the  Sun's  atmosphere  would  also  be  affected  like 
that  of  the  Earth;  while  the  mass-variation  caused  by  the 
Earth's  connexion  with  Jupiter  is  half  of  186,000,000X49,000,- 
000X1=9 XlO15  cubic  miles  in  a  period  of  199  days.  So  that, 
in  equal  units  of  time,  the  influence  of  the  Sun  upon  the  con- 
nective variation  in  our  atmosphere  is  about  eighteen  times 
as  powerful  as  the  influence  of  Jupiter.  Had  this  value  of 
the  solar  connective  variation  been  placed  in  table  III,  the  to- 
tal value  of  all  the  planetary  connective  variations  would  sink 
almost  into  comparative  insignificance.  But  as  the  period  of 
this  solar  variation  is  almost  precisely  one-half  of  a  calendar 
year,  every  year  would  be  exactly  the  same  so  far  as  this 
disturbing  factor  is  concerned;  and  the  peculiarities  of  the 
table,  with  the  exception  of  the  wet  and  the  dry  seasons  of 
the  year,  would  remain  wholly  unaffected. 

127.  The  Lunar  Factor  of  the  Connective  Variation. — Here 
again  is  met  a  difficulty  similar  to  that  met  in  determining 


128]          INTERPLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  WEATHER  227 

the  relative  density  of  the  Earth's  primary  connexion.  What 
is  the  relative  density  at  the  Earth's  surface  of  the  Moon's 
primary  connexion  with  respect  to  that  of  the  Earth's  pri- 
mary connexion?  It  will,  perhaps,  suffice  here  to  suppose 
that  the  actual  work  which  a  connexion  performs  affords  a 
trustworthy  indication  of  its  actual  strength  or  material  den- 
sity. The  Moon's  primary  connexion  draws  the  Moon  from 
the  tangent  to  its  orbit  about  0.0045  ft.  in  one  second,  and 
the  Earth's  primary  connexion  draws  the  Earth  from  the 
tangent  to  its  orbit  about  0.0096  ft.  in  one  second,  which  is 
2. 335  as  far  as  the  Moon  is  drawn  in  the  same  time;  and,  the 
Earth  being  80  times  heavier  than  the  Moon,  the  strain  on 
its  connexion  would  thus  be  2.135X80,  or  about  171  times 
greater  than  on  the  Moon's  connexion;  so  that  the  strength 
or  material  density  of  the  former  connexion  (that  of  the 
Earth's  primary  connexion  being  1048  times  that  of  its  con- 
nexion with  Jupiter — see  preceding  Art.)  will  be  about  6. 
Now  the  average  linear  variation  of  the  Moon's  primary  con- 
nexion is  about  26,000  miles,  or  the  difference  of  the  Moon's 
distance  at  apogee  and  perigee.  So  that,  to  obtain  the  mass- 
variation  of  the  lunar  connexion,  we  have  26,000X49,000,000 
X6  =  77X1011  cubic  miles.  The  period  of  this  variation  is 
the  average  time  required  by  the  Moon  to  pass  from  the 
perigee  of  its  orbit  to  the  apogee,  or  nearly  14  days.  The 
standard  density  here  used  is  that  of  Jupiter's  secondary  con- 
nexion with  the  Earth,  and  to  reduce  this  to  the  standard 
used  in  table  III,  the  above  result  must  be  multiplied  by 
4771;  which  gives  77  X 10"  X  4771,  or  about  37X1015,  or  about 
2/5  of  unity  on  the  basis  of  table  III,  and  half  of  this  must 
l»e  assigned  to  the  variation  on  the  Moon  itself.  Also,  since 
there  are,  on  the  average,  some  2.033  lunar  variation  period's 
in  a  month,  there  would  remain  but  1/30  of  1/5  of  unity  to 
affect  any  monthly  value  in  table  III;  so  that  not  a  single 
figure  of  that  table  would  be  affected  by  the  insertion  of  this 
factor. 

128.     The  Sidereal   Factor  of  the  Connective  Variation. — 
It  might  be  supposed,  at  a  first  glance,  that,  as  the  Earth 


228  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [128 

swings  from  one  side  of  the  Sun,  to  the  other,  the  accumu- 
lation of  the  connexions  with  the  heavenly  bodies  beyond 
the  Solar  System,  from  one  direction,  would  be  about  bal- 
anced by  the  withdrawals  from  the  opposite  direction.  But 
this,  in  all  probability,  is  not  ttfe  case,  for  the  reason  that 
our  world  is  not  situated  in  the  center  of  the  Sidereal  Sys- 
tem, but  considerably  to  one  side  of  that  center.  One  reason 
we  have  for  believing  this  is  that,  in  examining  the  sky  with 
our  telescopes,  in  one  direction  we  see  comparatively  few 
stars,  and  generally  the  individual  stars  are  clearly  projected 
upon  the  general  blackness  of  the  heavens;  while,  looking 
in  the  opposite  direction,  the  number  of  the  stars  is  greatly 
increased  and  their  magnitude  so  reduced  that  they  appear 
to  terminate  in  a  completely  irresolvable  nebulosity.  So 
that,  in  the  words  of  Sir  John  Herschel*  "Whatever  other 
conclusions  we  may  draw,  this  last  must  anyhow  be  regarded 
as  the  direction  of  the  greatest  linear  extension  of  the  ground 
plane  of  the  galaxy."  In  the  same  paragraph,  Herschel 
places  this  greatest  linear  extension  of  the  starry  sphere  in 
the  constellation  Scorpius,  which  is  situated  nearly  in  the 
intersection  of  the  planes  of  the  ecliptic  and  the  Milky  Way, 
and  through  which  the  Earth  passes  in  the  first  half  of  June. 
According  to  the  new  theory,  then,  the  Earth,  during  the  six 
months  of  the  year  preceding,  would  be  approaching  the 
greater  portion  of  the  sidereal  sphere  and  leaving  behind  the 
lesser  portion  of  it;  so  that,  the  accumulation  of  connective 
substance,  owing  to  this  cause,  upon  the  front  of  the  Earth 
during  that  time  would  be  in  excess  of  the  drain  in  its  rear. 
Also,  during  the  following  six  months,  the  drain  would  be 
in  excess  of  the  accumulation.  Again  allowing  a  lag  of 
about  three  months,  this  would  cause  a  comparative  excess 
of  precipitation  from  about  the  middle  of  March  to  the  mid- 
dle of  September,  and  a  deficiency  from  the  middle  of  Sep- 
tember to  the  middle  of  March. 

It  will  thus  be  observed  that  the  wet  season  of  the  year, 
owing  to  this  cause,  almost  exactly  coincides  with  the  dry 

*Outlines  of  Astronomy,  Art.    798. 


129]          INTERPLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  WEATHER  229 

season,  owing  to  the  solar  factor.  For  the  Earth  is  at  peri- 
helion, or  at  the  least  distance  from  the  Sun  about  the  first 
of  January;  and  allowing  three  months  of  lag,  as  before,  the 
solar  dry  season  would  be  from  March  to  October,  while  the 
sidereal  wet  season,  as  just  found,  extends  from  the  middle 
of  March  to  the  middle  of  September.  Thus  one  factor  coun- 
teracts the  effects  of  the  other,  so  that,  if  the  two  factors 
were  of  equal  value,  scarcely  any  effect  whatever  would  be 
assignable  to  either  at  the  present  time.  But  the  actual 
weather  appears  to  be  in  very  close  conformity  to  the  the- 
oretical effects  of  the  sidereal  factor.  For  from  an  examin- 
ation of  rainfall  statistics  over  the  Earth's  surface,  it  is  found 
that,  in  the  winter  season  of  the  northern  hemisphere,  the 
amount  of  precipitation  is  decidedly  less  than  in  the  summer 
season. 

129.  Connection  of  the  Sidereal  Factor  and  the  Wet  and 
Dry  Seasons. — The  Signal  Service  records  of  the  United 
States  show  undeniably  that  this  is  the  case  in  that  country.* 
As  far  back  as  these  records  extend,  with  respect  to  ten 
principal  Atlantic  cities,  viz.,  Eastport,  Boston,  New  York, 
Wilmington,  Charleston,  Savannah,  Jacksonville,  Key  West, 
New  Orleans,  and  Galveston,  they  show  that  the  average 
monthly  precipitation  in  all  is  4.35  inches;  that  November, 
December,  January,  February,  March,  April,  and  May  are 
below  the  mean,  the  middle  month  of  the  period,  February, 
having  a  maximum  deficiency  of  just  one  inch ;  and  that  June, 
July,  August,  September,  and  October  are  above  the  mean, 
the  middle  month,  August.,  having  a  maximum  excess  of  about 
an  inch  and  a  half. 

Also  in  Professional  Papers,  No.  X,  of  the  U.  S.  Signal 
Service  may  be  found  the  average  precipitation  of  each  month 
of  the  year  at  seventy-two  stations  scattered  over  the  whole 
country,  as  deduced  from  all  the  records  at  the  respective 
stations.  Summing  up  all  of  these,  the  average  monthly  mean 
is  found  to  be  3.60  inches  for  the  whole  area.  The  precip- 
itation is  in  excess  of  this  in  March,  April,  June,  July,  and 

*See  also  American  Weather,  pp.  139-144. 


230 


THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY 


[130 


August,  and  below  it  in  September,  October,  November,  De- 
cember, January,  February,  and  May.  It  is  noticeable  also 
that  the  nearer  we  approach  to  the  tropics,  the  more  exact 
is  the  correspondence.  Thus,  at  the  oceanic  station,  Key 
West,  Florida,  in  latitude  28°  ISfc,  the  Signal  Service  records 
give  six  months  of  excessive  precipitation  or  May  to  October 
inclusive,  and  six  months  of  deficient  precipitation,  or  No- 
vember to  April  inclusive. 

130,     Coincidence  of  the  Actually  Wet  and  Dry  Periods  of 
Years  With  the  Indicated  Wet  and  Dry  Planetary  Periods.— 

The  correspondence  of  the  actual  precipitation  at  the  last- 
named  station  with  the  theoretic  deductions  holds,  not  only 
for  these  sidereal  seasons  of  the  year,  but,  what  is  more  re- 
markable, it  holds  fairly  well  also  for  the  wet  and  dry  plan- 
etary periods  of  years  indicated  in  the  13th  column  of  table 
III.  Thus,  for  the  period  of  years  1870  to  1913,  inclusive,  the 
mean  annual  precipitation  at  this  station  is  39  inches,  and 
the  actual  variation  from  this  mean  for  each  year  is  as  fol- 
lows, the  theoretical  results  from  table  III  for  the  same  years 
being  placed  in  the  third  and  sixth  columns  for  comparison 
(full-face  figures  denoting  excess  and  the  plain  figures  de- 
noting deficiency) : 
Annual  Precipitation  at  Key  West,  Florida,  1870-1913,  Inclusive 


YEAR 

Actual  Excess 
or 
Deficiency. 
Inches. 

Theoretic 
Excess  or 
Deficiency. 

|     YEAR 

Actual  Excess    |  Theoretic 
or                |  Excess  or 
deficiency.      (Deficiency 
Inches.           1 

1870 

30.69  (ex.)        j     72  (ex.) 

1892 

14.09  (def.) 

105  (ex.) 

1871 

4.32  (def.)              7  (def.) 

1893 

17.00  (def.) 

98  (ex.) 

1872 

.7.23  (def.) 

54  (def.)l      1894 

3.34  (ex.) 

25  (ex.) 

1873 

6.25  (def.) 

105  (def.)|      1895 

9.81  (def.)       1    26  (def.) 

1874 

6.25  (def.) 

87  (def.)|      1896 

13.28  (def.) 

83  (def.) 

1875 

2.63  (def.) 

83  (def.) 

1897 

7.46  (ex.)        (102  (def.) 

1876     1        1.05  (def.) 

68  (def.) 

1898 

4.39  (ex.) 

Ill  (def.) 

1877     |           .85  (def.) 

0  (def.) 

1899 

9.45  (def.) 

93  (def.) 

1878     |      10.03  (ex.) 

53  (ex.) 

1900 

9.81  (ex.) 

52  (def.) 

1879 

19.54  (ex.)        |  120  (ex.) 

1901 

1.98  (def.) 

12  (ex.) 

1880 

5.59  (def.) 

127  (ex.) 

1902 

.39  (def.) 

56  (ex.) 

1881 

14.10  (ex.) 

138  (ex.) 

1903 

8.64  (def.) 

97  (ex.) 

1882 

2.86  (ex.) 

63  (ex.) 

1904 

1.02  (def.)      |158  (ex.) 

1883 

9.24  (ex.) 

0  (ex.) 

1905 

2.84  (ex.) 

Ill  (ex.) 

1884 

5.95  (def.) 

56  (def.) 

1906 

9.53  (ex.) 

44  (ex.) 

1885 

4.97  (def.) 

101  (def.)|      1907 

12.35  (def.) 

17  (def.) 

1886 

8.97  (def.) 

101  (def.)|      1908 

.17  (def.) 

52  (def.) 

1887 

4.62  (ex.) 

85  (def.)|      1909 

17.35  (ex.) 

101  (def.) 

1888     |         3.42  (def.) 

65  (def.)|      1910 

10.57  (def.) 

66  (def.) 

1889     |      13.67  (ex.) 

21  (def.) 

1911 

3.33  (def.) 

63  (def.) 

1890 

3.87  (ex.) 

36  (ex.) 

1912 

4.45  (ex.) 

13  (def.) 

1891 

.75  (ex.) 

89  (ex.) 

1913 

9.04  (def.) 

20  (ex.) 

131]          INTERPLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  WEATHER  231 

As  shown  by  the  U.  S.  Signal  Service  records  for  the  44 
years  given  in  the  preceding  table,  the  actual  annual  excesses 
of  precipitation  agree  with  the  theoretic  excesses  for  11  years, 
and  the  actual  annual  deficiencies  of  precipitation  agree  with 
the  theoretic  deficiencies  for  18  years,  leaving  a  disagreement 
of  theory  and  fact  in  15  years  of  the  period;  or  nearly  two 
eases  of  agreement  to  one  of  disagreement.  As  illustrating 
the  effects  of  local  disturbances,  it  may  be  mentioned  that 
the  three  years  of  most  pronounced  disagreement  (1892-3  and 
1S09)  all  actually  agree  with  the  theory  at  each  of  several 
other  stations  in  the  same  locality  (e.  g.,  Clermont  and  Hypo- 
luxo) ;  that  is,  the  first  two  years  show  actual  excesses  at 
these  stations  instead  of  large  deficiencies,  and  the  other 
year  shows  a  deficiency  instead  of  a  large  excess.  As  we 
go  northwards  to  New  York  and  Boston,  however,  this  cor- 
respondence becomes  less  and  less  distinguishable,  although 
it  still  appears  to  be  distinctly  traceable  over  the  entire 
country. 

Similar  correspondences  could  be  given  for  similar  stations 
in  the  East  Indies,  Asia,  South  Africa,  and  Australia.  The 
season*  of  heavy  precipitation  at  Key  West  are  coincident 
with  the  seasons  of  cyclones  and  typhoons  of  the  entire  equa- 
torial belt,  at  which  seasons  all  portions  of  the  Earth's  sur- 
face accessible  to  the  influence  of  these  storms  have  a  max- 
imum amount  of  precipitation.  But  much  greater  accordance 
of  theory  and  fact  would  no  doubt  be  found,  if  statistics  were 
available,  from  within  the  Torrid  Zone  itself,  owing  to  the 
much  greater  precipitation  occuring  therein. 

"We  take  from  M.  Lemstrom's  pages  the  following  concise 
table,  strongly  corroborative  of  Edlund's  theory,  showing  the 
dependence  upon  latitude  of  storm-frequency:  Mean  annual 
number  of  storms  between  0°  and  30°,  52;  between  30°  and 
50°,  20;  between  50°  and  60",  15;  between  60°  and  70°,  10; 
about  70°,  0."* 

131.     Relative  Amounts  and  Effects  of  the  Several  Factors. 

— Of  course  it  is  not  possible  at  the  present  time  to  compute 
the  actual  amount  of  variation  of  the  sidereal  connexions,  as 

*Prof.  H.  E.  Armstrong,  Nature,  35,  596-7. 


232  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [132 

has  been  done  with  the  planetary  and  the  solar  connexions. 
The  relative  efficiency  of  the  former  with  respect  to  the  lat- 
ter cannot,  therefore,  be  determined.  But  if  the  reasoning 
is  correct  in  other  respects,  it  mast  obviously  follow  that  the 
sidereal  variation,  from  the  preponderating  effects  correspond- 
ing to  it,  must  certainly  be  greater  than  the  solar  and  the 
planetary  variations. 

Since  the  relative  efficiency  of  the  solar'  and  the  sidereal 
factors  of  the  seasonable  weather  changes  cannot  be  com- 
puted, neither  can  be  computed  the  relative  efficiency  of  the 
effective  difference  between  the  two  and  the  planetary  fac- 
tor, the  value  of  which  is  given  in  table  III.  It  may  be  that 
the  planetary  factor  is  nearly  as  powerful  as  the  excess  of 
the  sidereal  factor  over  and  above  the  solar  factor,  or  it  may 
be  that  the  latter  is  the  more  powerful.  Subsequent  inves- 
tigations may  determine  this  point.  In  the  meantime  it  may 
in  any  case  reasonably  be  'supposed  that,  when  a  planetary 
wet  or  dry  season  coincides  with  a  similar  sidereal  season, 
an  in  the  periods  1879  to  1883  and  1891  to  1894,  more  than 
the  ordinary  intensity  of  precipitation  and  drouth  will  char- 
acterize our  summers  and  winters,  respectively,  of  these 
years;  and  that  when  the  dry  season  of  the  one  nearly  coin- 
cides with  the  wet  seanson  of  the  other,  as  from  1884  to  1890 
and  from  1895  to  1900,  less  than  the  ordinary  intensity  of 
precipitation  and  drouth  which  characterize  our  summer  and 
our  winter  seasons  respectively,  may  be  looked  for.  Much 
less  than  the  usual  lag  would  take  place  in  these  cases  for 
the  reason  that,  in  the  first  case,  normal  conditions  would 
always  accompany  an  approximately  even  balance  of  the  fac- 
tors. 

132.  Incompleteness  of  Our  Meteorological  Data. — But  a 
great  deal  undoubtedly  yet  remains  to  be  known  regarding 
the  effect  upon  precipitation  of  the  drains  and  accumulations 
of  connective  substance  in  our  atmosphere.  The  views  here 
offered  are  simply  those  which,  from  a  consideration  of  the 
facts  so  far  as  they  are  known,  have  appeared  the  most 
reasonable.  Other  facts,  however,  may  yet  come  to  light 


133]          INTERPLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  WEATHER  233 

•which  may  considerably  modify  these  views.  Moreover,  our 
present  system  cf  meteon  lomcal  observations  is  very  incom- 
plete. In  the  comparatively  few  observations  made,  most 
nations  appear  to  act  independently  of  each  other;  and  of 
course  no  observation  whatever  is  made  with  reference  to  the 
theory  here  advanced.  So  that  there  is  not  only  no  digest 
of  the  observations  of  the  world  as  a  whole,  but  there  ap- 
pears to  be,  in  most  cases,  no  digest  even  of  the  observations 
of  a  single  country  as  a  whole.  Maps  and  charts  are  usually 
given  showing  the  actual  precipitation  over  the  different  por- 
tions of  a  country,  and  the  variations  of  this  from  the  mean 
monthly  or  annual  precipitation  for  each  particular  locality. 
(Also  this  mean  or  standard  amount  of  precipitation  itself 
appears  to  vary  from  year  to  year,  whereas  an  invariable 
standard  should  be  adopted,  at  least  for  a  considerable  per- 
iod of  years).  But  if  the  mean  monthly  or  annual  precipita- 
tion, and  the  actual  monthly  and  annual  variations  there- 
from, for  the  country  as  a  whole,  are  desired,  the  inquirer 
himself  must  generally  perform  the  almost  herculean  labor  of 
reducing  these  data  from  the  raw  statistics  of  each  individ- 
ual locality.  Nor  can  even  these  be  always  obtained  at  one 
head  office;  some  of  the  statistics  are  usually  out  of  print, 
and  various  different  places  must  be  searched  for  the  rnanu- 
script  records. 

It  is  urgently  needed  that  a  more  extensive  and  complete 
system  of  meteorological  observations  should  at  once  be 
adopted  by  all  nations,  and  the  general  results  from  each 
country  sent  to  one  office  for  more  complete  generalization. 
Indeed  comparatively  little  in  the  important  department  of 
weather  prediction  can  be  accomplished  until  the  maze  of  in- 
tricate agents  and  complex  disturbing  factors  are  brought 
into  some  such  general  system. 

133.  Application  and  Value  of  These  Weather  Indications. 
— Finally,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  weather  indicated 
by  means  of  the  variations  of  the  terrestrial  connexions  of 
all  kinds  apply,  not  to  any  particular  locality  or  country,  but 
to  the  Earth's  surface  as  a  whole.  It  may  not  infrequently 


234  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [134 

happen  through  local  disturbing  causes  (which,  however, 
may  sometime  not  improbaly  be  pre-determined)  that  in 
certain  localities  extreme  drouth  prevails  while  over  the 
Earth's  surface  as  a  whole,  the  precipitation  is  excessive;  or 
there  is  excessive  precipitation  in  certain  localities  while  ex- 
treme drouth  generally  prevails.  But  the  instances  of  this 
discordance  would  obviously  be  comparatively  rare;  and  the 
indications  would  necessarily  hold  good  in  the  great  majority 
of  cases,  even  if  the  effects  of  the  local  disturbing  forces 
could  not  be  foretold. 

With  respect  to  the  wet  and  the  dry  periods  of  years,  the 
lag  is  more  regular  than  in  the  wet  and  the  dry  seasons,  and 
the  effects  of  the  disturbing  factors  are  largely  eliminated  by 
inclusion  of  them  in  nearly  equal  amounts  and  kinds  in  each 
period.  It  appears  to  be  a  safe  deduction  from  the  new  views 
here  advanced  that  from  the  second  year  of  a  tabular  dry 
period  to  the  second  year  of  a  tabular  wet  period  (such  as 
are  given  in  table  III),  the  precipitation  will  be  compara- 
tively deficient  generally  over  the  Earth's  surface,  and  that 
from  the  second  year  of  a  tabular  wet  period  to  the  second 
year  of  a  tabular  dry  period,  the  precipitation  will  be  com- 
paratively excessive.  There  appears  to  be  no  doubt  of  the 
theoretic  correctness  of  this  conclusion,  and  being  also  strong- 
ly corroborated  by  actual  observation,  as  we  have  just  seen 
in  this  chapter,  it  ought  to  prove  of  no  small  value  to  us, 
from  the -facility  with  which  these  periods  may  be  computed 
for  immediate  future  years. 

134.  A  Probable  Basis  for  the  Flood  Legend. — It  has  been 
observed  that  a  solar  wet  or  dry  season  is  almost  exactly 
cne-half  of  a  sidereal  year.  The  difference  between  the  two 
— less  than  two  and  a  half  minutes — is  very  small  indeed. 
But  small  as  it  is,  it  may  prove  to  be  of  considerable  theo- 
retical importance.  'The  length  of  a  solar  wet  and  a  solar 
dry  season  together  is  the  period  of  time  during  which  the 
Earth  passes  from  the  aphelion  of  its  orbit  around  to  the 
same  point  of  its  orbit  again;  and  this  period  does  not  exactly 
correspond  in  length  either  to  the  sidereal  or  the  tropical 


134]          INTERPLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  WEATHER  235 

year.  A  sidereal  year  is  the  period  of  time  during  which  the 
Earth  passes  from  a  straight  line  joining  a  so-called  fixed  star 
and  the  Sun  around  to  the  same  line  again;  and  this  period 
exactly  includes  a  sidereal  wet  season  and  a  sidereal  dry 
season  together  and  no  more.  If  the  line  which  joins  the 
perihelion  and  the  aphelion  of  the  Earth's  orbit  were  as  fixed, 
or  rather  moved  as  slowly,  as  that  joining  the  Sun  and  the 
star,  the  sidereal  and  the  solar  seasons  would  be  exactly  sim- 
ilar in  length.  But  this  line,  the  line  of  apsides,  is  not  fixed. 
It  has  an  extremely  slow  direct  motion  of  nearly  12"  per 
annum  from  the  star-line;  so  that  the  Earth's  perihelion 
makes  a  complete  revolution,  from  a  certain  fixed  star  around 
to  the  same  star  again  in  about  109,830  years. 

Now  the  longitude  of  the  Earth's  perihelion  at  the  pres- 
ent times  is  100°  30',  and  that  of  the  point  of  greatest  linear 
extension  of  the  sidereal  sphere  is  about  262°.  The  line  of 
apsides  has,  therefore,  traversed  over  198°  since  the  time 
when  perihelion  and  the  point  of  greatest  extension  of  the 
Leavens  were  coincident;  which  movement  has  taken  place 
in  a  period  of  nearly  60,000  years.  At  that  time,  then,  the 
sicfereal  and  the  solar  seasons  exactly  coincided,  wet  with 
wet  and  dry  with  dry;  so  that  instead  of  the  one  antagonizing 
the  other,  as  at  present,  both  factors  would  unite  in  producing 
a  wet  season  of  tremendous  precipitation  and  a  dry  season 
in  which  the  Earth's  surface  would  be  extremely  parched. 
Sixty  thousand  years  ago  these  conditions  would  supervene 
with  a  maximum  degree  of  intensity;  and  they  would  con- 
tinue with  slowly  diminishing  intensity  for  some  25,000  years 
longer.  After  this  more  than  half  of  the  one  factor  would 
be  counteracted  by  the  other,  and  this  degree  of  counterac- 
tion would  gradually  increase  down  to  4,500  years  ago,  when 
it  would  have  been  at  a  maximum,  or  the  two  factors  would 
be  completely  antagonistic.  At  this  time,  therefore,  the  sea- 
sonal intensity  would  be  at  a  minimum.  It  is  now  increasing 
and,  in  some  50,000  years,  will  be  again  at  a  maximum. 

These  are  the  theoretical  deductions,  but  perhaps  they 
are  not  entitled  to  implicit  reliance.  The  revolution  of  the 


236  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [134 

line  of  apsides  may  possibly  be  irregular,  and  such  irregular- 
ities might  very  considerably  modify  the  times  of  theoretic 
maximum  and  minimum  seasonal  intensity.  £t  is  true  that 
such  irregularities  are  as  yet  unknown;  but  the  periods  are 
so  vast  compared  with  the  period  of  recorded  observations, 
that  it  might  be  premature  to  assume,  amidst  the  maze-like 
intricacies  of  Nature,  that  such  irregularities  did  not  exist. 
Still  the  coincidence  of  the  solar  and  the  sidereal  seasons 
would  certainly  have  taken  place  sometime  in  the  past,  and, 
if  the  new  theory  be  true,  this  coincidence  would  as  cer- 
tainly be  accompanied  by  extreme  drouths  and  deluges. 

The  question  now  occurs — May  not  these  seasonal  deluges 
be  the  origin  of  the  legends  of  the  Flood?  If  man  was  con- 
temporary with  the  great  Ice  Age,  as  apparently  reliable  tes- 
timony goes  to  prove,  he  would  have  had  ample  opportunity 
to  witness  and  experience  the  tremendous  floods  ascribable 
to  this  cause;  as  the  most  conservative  estimate  of  the  per- 
iod since  glaciation  is  more  than  30,000  years,  while  by  far 
the  greater  number  and  the  most  eminent  of  geologists  place 
it  at  six  times  this  duration.  It  is  undeniable  that  the  the- 
ory thus  furnishes  a  possible  and  even  plausible  scientific 
explanation  of  the  diluvial  legends.  (In  any  event  a  compar- 
ison of  this  explanation  with  that  of  collision  of  the  Earth 
with  a  comet's  tail — that  of  Kant  and  William  Whiston  and 
about  the  only  other — is  certainly  not  unfavorable  to  the 
newer  view. 

The  same  explanation  would  also  apply  to  the  periods  of 
excessive  erosion  of  the  Earth's  surface,  which  the  testimony 
oi'  the  rocks  so  clearly  indicates,  and  which  geologists  find 
so  inexplicable,  especially  in  the  later  geological  periods. 
No  more  probable  explanation  of  this  excessive  erosion,  fol- 
lowed again  by  quiescent  periods  of  deposition  can  scarcely 
be  imagined  than  the  alternate  extreme  drenchings  and 
parchings  of  the  Earth-crust  continued  for  many  thousands 
of  years  and  followed  again  by  an  equally  long  period  of 
comparative  elemental  equilibrium  and  quiescence,  as  implied 


135]     INTERPLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  WEATHER     237 

by  the  foregoing  deductions  from  the  connective  theory.    (See 
also  Art.  141), 

135.  Connection  of  the  Orbital  Period  of  Jupiter  With  the 
Indicated  Wet  and  Dry  Periods  of  Years  and  With  the  Sun- 
spot  PeriodsL — A  tabular  dry  season  and  wet  season  together 
usually  aggregate  about  thirteen  months,  and  generally  a 
year  is  indicated  to  be  wet  or  dry  according  as  all  of  the  wet 
or  all  of  the  dry  season  is  included  in  it.  Pushing  this  in- 
quiry further  in  the  same  direction,  it  is  observed  that  the 
synodic  period  of  the  great  planet  Jupiter  is  also  thirteen 
months,  and  that  the  indicated  dry  seasons  of  the  year  very 
closely  correspond  to  the  times  of  the  Earth's  recession  from, 
and  the  indicated  wet  seasons  to  the  times  during  which  the 
Earth  is  approaching,  that  planet.  It  is  found,  then,  that, 
in  general,  a  year  is  indicated  to  be  dry  or  wet  according 
as  the  planet  Jupiter  comes  in  conjunction  with  the  Earth 
in  the  first  half  or  in  the  last  half  of  the  year;  as  in  the 
former  case,  all  the  recession  from,  while  in  the  latter  case 
all  the  approach  towards,  that  planet  would  be  included  with- 
in the  year. 

The  time  of  maximum  sunspots,  which,  as  already  seen, 
is  the  time  of  theoretic  change  from  wet  to  dry  years,  would 
thus  correspond  to  the  time  in  which  the  planet  Jupiter  comes 
into  opposition*  with  the  Earth  about  the  middle  of  the  year, 
and  the  time  of  sunspot  minimum  corresponds  to  that  in  which 
it  comes  into  conjunction  with  the  Earth  about  the  same 
time.  Thus,  in  the  sunspot  maxima  of  1907,  1895,  1883,  1871, 
1860,  1848,  1837,  the  times  of  Jupiter's  opposition  were  July 
ID,  July  29,  July  6,  July  3,  July  27,  July  23,  and  August  19 
respectively;  and  in  the  sunspot  minima  of  1913,  1902,  1890, 
1878,  1867,  1856,  1843,  1833,  the  times  of  Jupiter's  conjunction 
were  July  4,  July  1,  July  25,  July  24,  August  25,  September 
26,  August  15,  and  October  23,  respectively;  all  of  which  are 
not  far  from  the  middle  of  the  year  except  the  last. 

Before  discussing  a  possible  explanation  of  ttiis,  let  us 
glance  one  more  at  the  figures  of  table  III.  Taking  the  in- 
dicated dry  season  of  1840  and  adding  its  monthly  values  to- 

*See  footnote  p.  209. 


238  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [135 

gether,  they  are  found  to  aggregate  549,  which  sum  is  placed 
over  the  last  monthly  value  of  that  season.  The  same  is 
done  with  the  succeeding  wet  season  and  with  each  follow- 
ing season  in  succession.  In  1851  the  minimum  seasonal 
sum  of  266  is  obtained,  after  which  these  gradually  increase 
to  a  maximum  of  554  in  1861,  decrease  to  a  minimum  of  324 
in  1872,  increase  to  a  maximum  of  575  in  1882,  decrease  to 
a  minimum  of  277  in  1891,  and  so  on.  A  moment's  consid- 
eration suffices  to  show  that  the  cause  of  these  seasonal 
maxima  and  minima  is  the  relative  bunching  and  scattering 
of  the  four  planets.  If  the  four  planets  were  all  in  the  same 
longitude  with  respect  to  the  Earth,  the  latter  would  recede 
from,  or  approach  towards,  them  all  at  the  same  time,  and 
the  aggregate  valuei  of  a  dry  or  of  a  wet  season  would  then 
be  a  maximum.  But  if  the  planets  were  so  evenly  distributed 
around  the  Earth  that  the  recession  upon  one  side  of  it  was 
balanced  as  nearly  as  possible  by  the  approaches  On  the  other, 
then  the  aggregate  value  of  a  dry  or  a  wet  season  would  be 
the  smallest  possible.  The  dry  and  the  wet  periods  of  years, 
as  given  in  table  III,  are  therefore  determined  solely  by  the 
movements  of  the  planets  around  the  Earth,  principally  by 
the  movement  of  the  planet  Jupiter;  these  movements  deter- 
mining the  seasonal  changes  on  which,  in  turn,  the  wet  and 
dry  periods  of  years  depend. 

Now  here  is  a  promising  explanation  of  the  sunspot  per- 
iods, because,  when  the  planets  are  bunched  with  respect  to 
the  Earth,  they  are  so  to  a  great  extent  with  respect  to  the 
Sun  also.  But  on  closer  inspection  the  explanation  fails, 
because,  from  a  comparison  of  the  14th  and  15th  columns 
of  table  III,  it  is  seen  that  the  yearly  periods  of  the  sun- 
spots  and  of  the  connexion  variations  upon  the  Earth  are 
Quite  incommensurable,  and  so  cannot  have  the  same  cause. 
While  the  rotation,  in  the  successive  years,  of  the  seasonal 
changes,  as  determined  by  the  planetary  movements,  which 
causes  the  wet  and  dry  periods  of  years,  gives  a  relation 
between  the  planetary  movements  and  the  sunspot  periods, 
because  these  wet  and  dry  periods  of  years  and  the  sunspot 


135]    INTERPLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  WEATHER     239 

periods  coincide  for  nearly  a  century,,  yet  the  manner  of  der- 
ivation of  the  wet  and  dry  periods  of  years  is  independent  of 
the  seasonal  maxima  and  minima,  so  that  a  maximum  sea- 
sonal variation  does  not  at  all  correspond  with  a  maximum 
yearly  variation;  the  latter  being  only  the  algebraic  sum  of 
a  wet  and  a  dry  season  within  the  limit  of  a  calendar  year; 
which  sum  may  be  about  as  great  in  the  case  of  a  seasonal 
minimum  as  in  the  case  of  a  seasonal  maximum.* 

*This,  however,  has  reference  only  to  the  principal  11-year  sun- 
spot  period.  The  minor  sunspot  periods  of  4,  8,  and  14  years,  which 
Prof.  Schuster  is  said  to  have  found  (See  Prof.  H.  H.  Turner,  Address 
sec.  A,  B.  A.  A.  S.,  1911),  appear  to  harmonize,  to  a  certain  extent,  with 
the  planetary  connexion  variations.  From  the  last  column  of  tahle  III, 
it  is  seen  that  the  period  between  successive  maxima  of  the  seasonal 
planetary  variations — which  correspond  to  the  comparative  bunching  of 
the  planets  upon  one  side  of  the  Sun,  and  which,  therefore,  by  the  new 
theory,  should  have  some  effect  upon  the  formation  of  sunspots — is  about 
19  years;  which  very  approximately  equals  44-14  and  8-|-ll  years.  For 
various  conflicting  views  on  these  minor  sunspot  periods,  see  Nature, 
87,293;  90,454;  92,411. 


CHAPTER  IX 


INTERPLANETARY  CONNEXIONS  AND  SUN- 

SPOTS,  THE  ZODIACAL  LIGHT,  AND 

THE  SOLAR  CORONA. 


In  the  corona  at  minimum  sunspots,  we  have  a  well-devel- 
oped, regular  equatorial  elongation;  at  maximum  spots,  all 
this  is  changed  and  we  get  streamers  and  their  separating 
rifts  very  irregularly  distributed. — J.  NORMAN  LOCKYER. 

The  attenuated  cosmical  matter  of  which  the  zodiacal 
light  is  probably  composed  extends  all  around  the  sun,  in  the 
form  of  a  very  flattened  ellipsoid  of  revolution,  to  a  distance 
well  beyond  the  earth's  orbit  in  the  plane  of  the  sun's  equa- 
tor.—E.  MARCHAUD. 

Yet  all  these  were  when  no  Man  did  them  know, 
Yet  have  from  wisest  Ages  hidden  beene; 

And  later  Times  thinges  more  unknown  shall  show. 
Why  then  should  witlesse  Man  so  much  misweene 
That  nothing  is,  but  that  which  he  hath  seene? — (?) 

136.  The  Maxima  and  Minima  of  Sunspots  and  Their 
Causes. — If  maximum  sunspots  coincided  with  the  grouping 
of  the  planets  upon  one  side  of  the  Sun,  and  minimum  sun- 
spots  coincided  with  the  even  distribution  of  the  planets  all 
around  the  Sun,  it  would  furnish  a  beautiful  explanation  of 
the  phenomena  of  sunspots,  because  the  grouping  upon  one 
side  of  the  Sun  of  the  primary  planetary  connexions  would 
in  effect  increase  the  density  and  elevation  of  the  solar  con- 
nective atmosphere  on  that  side;  which  would  enable  the 
heated  vapor  to  ascend  higher  therein  and  so  cool,  condense, 
and  fall  back  again  upon  the  Sun  to  form  the  spots;  while 
the  even  all  around  distributiion  of  the  planets  would  imply 
a  uniform  height  of  solar  atmosphere  and  consequent  min- 
imum opportunity  for  such  vapor  cooling  and  condensing. 

That  something  like  this  is  really  the  mechanism  of  sun- 
spot  formation  is  abundantly  verified  by  the  researches  of 
nearly  all  investigators  of  this  subject.  Prof.  J.  Norman 
Lockyer  quotes  from  Dr.  Peters  and  Rev.  S.  J.  Perry  to  show 


136]    CONNEXIONS,    SUNSPOTS,   ZODIACAL  LIGHT,   CORONA     241 

that  sunspots  almost  invariably  commence  life  as  little  dots, 
which  accumulate  in  larger  and  larger  groups  until  full  spot 
maturity  is  attained,  usually  in  five  or  six  days;  and  that  the 
last  act  in  their  history  is  their  invasion  and  extinction  by 
taculae.  These  faculae  are  enormous  upheavals  of  heated 
vapor  which  occur  only  in  the  neighborhood  of  spots  and  in- 
variably arise  subsequently  to  their  appearance.  In  other 
words,  a  facula  is  the  fire  and  vapor  of  a  burning  sunspot. 
Prof.  Lockyer  says: 

"We  can  see  that  it  is  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world 
to  suppose  that  in  an  atmosphere  like  the  sun's,  seeing  that 
there  is  enormous  radiation  and  therefore  cooling  of  the  ex- 
terior, there  must  be  a  descent  of  solid  particles  into  the  in- 
terioir  heated  region.  Now  can  we  associate  this  with  spot 
phenomena? 

"Yes,  we  can,  and  we  are  absolutely  driven  to  it.  We 
have  already  seen  that  the  spot,  when  it  travels  over  the 
limit,  is  a  hollow.  We  also  find  when  we  examine  a  spot 
*Titih  the  spectroscope  that  certain  vapors  get  very  much 
denser,  as  if  they  were  being  crushed  together  into  a  certain 
limited  region  either  by  an  up  thrust  or  a  downfall.  Which? 
Well,  the  spectroscope  answers  that  question  for  us  perfectly 
because  it  shows  that  the  vapors  are  absorbing,  and  therefore 
that  they  are  cooler  than  the  photospheric  material  imme- 
diately underlying  them,  and  that  they  have  not  an  excess 
of  radiation,  as  they  would  have  if  they  came  up  from  below; 
the  vapors  there  are  cooler,  as  they  should  be  if  they  came 
from  a  cooler  place;  they  are  denser,  as  they  should  be,  if 
they  are  descending  rapidly  into  a  place  which  is  more  or 
less  confined;  and,  more  than  all,  the  change  of  the  refran- 
gibility  of  certain  lines  enables  us  to  determine  roughly  the 
rate  at  which  these  descents  take  place.  A  very  common 
velocity  is  thirty  miles  a  second."* 

Elsewhere  he  also  states: 

"Above  latitude  303,  as  a  rule,  we  have  no  spots,  because 
.  .  .  the  atmosphere  is  of  lower  elevation,  so  that  there 
is  not  sufficient  height  of  fall  to  give  the  velocities  required 
to  bring  down  the  material  in  the  solid  form."f 

It  has  already  been  observed  that  the  giant  planet,  Jupi- 
ter, largely  determines  the  wet  and  the  dry  seasons,  as  well 
as  the  wet  and  the  dry  periods  of  years;  and  that  for  nearly 

*Nature,  33,  470. 
fNature,  34,  255. 


242  THE   CONNECTIVE   THEORY  [137 

a  century,  the  times  of  sunspot  maximum  closely  coincide 
with  the  times  this  planet  comes  into  opposition  with  the 

Earth  about  the  middle  of  the  year,  and  the  times  of  sunspot 

• 
minimum  coincide  with  those  in  which  this  planet  comes  into 

conjunction  with  the  Earth  about  the  middle  of  the  year. 
Now  it  is  generally  admitted  that  the  Sun  itself  is  but  a 
greater  planet  revolving  slowly  round  some  distant  central 
body  or  system.  By  the  new  theory  the  Sun  would  be  pri- 
marily connected  with  that  distant  central  system  just  as 
Jupiter  and  its  system  is  with  the  Sun.  The  material  con- 
nexions of  the  Sun  with  each  member  of  its  parent  system 
would,  in  their  totality,  be  much  more  dense  and  voluminous 
than  any  of  the  planetary  connexions,  just  as  the  Earth's 
primary  connexion  is  more  dense  and  voluminous  than  that 
of  the  Moon;  also  it  would  lie  about  in  the  plane  of  the  solar 
equator  for  precisely  the  same  reasons  that  the  planetary  con- 
nexions lie  in  that  plane.  About  every  twelve  years,  there- 
fore, the  primary  connexion  of  Jupiter  and  the  Sun's  primary 
connexion  would  coincide  upon  one  side  of  the  Sun,  and  so 
form  the  comparatively  elevated  atmosphere  there  which,  as 
has  just  been  seen,  would  facilitate  the  rapid  formation  of 
sun  spots.  And  the  fact  that  maximum  sunspots  actually  oc- 
curs when  Jupiter  is  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  Sun  from 
the  Earth  in  the  middle  of  the  year,  points  unmistakably  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  solar  connexion  lies  in  the  direction 
of  Jupiter  at  that  time,  and  that  the  Earth  passes  through 
it  in  December  and  January. 

137.  The  Zodiacal  Light  and  Its  Connection  With  the  Sun- 
spot  Periods. — Is  there  any  evidence  corroborative  of  this 
conclusion?  Indeed  there  appears  to  be  a  splendid  and  in- 
controvertible corroboration  of  it  in  the  phenomenon  of  the 
zodiacal  light.  This  phenomenon,  hitherto  inexplicable,  in- 
terpreted by  the  connective  theory,  is  nothing  else  than  the 
Sun's  primary  connexion  with  the  central  parent  system  of 
which  the  Solar  System  is  an  immediate  member;  and  it  ex- 
tends precisely  in  the  indicated  direction. 

Regarding  the  zodiacal  light,  the  peculiar  misconception 


137]    CONNEXIONS,    SUNSPOTS,   ZODIACAL   LIGHT,    CORONA     243 

apparently  everywhere  prevails  that  it  is  lenticular-shaped 
and  extends  equally  around  the  Sun's  equator,  or  at  least  in 
two  opposite  directions  from  it.  But  that  it  extends  only  in 
one  direction  from  the  Sun  is  clearly  shown  by  the  fact  that 
for  about  six  months  of  the  year  (from  about  August  1  to 
January  31),  it  is  seen  in  the  east  just  before  daybreak,  and 
that,  for  a  somewhat  longer  season,  (from  the  end  of  Octo- 
ber to  about  the  middle  of  June),  it  is  visible  in  the  west 
after  sunset.  So  that  for  about  eight  months  of  the  year, 
it  is  visible  only  in  the  evening  or  in  the  morning,  that  is, 
on  only  one  side  of  the  Sun;  in  the  month  of  July,  it  is  -not 
visible  at  all,  being  then  behind  the  Sun:  and  in  November, 
December,  and  January,  or  while  the  Earth  is  passing  through 
it,  it  is  visible  both  in  the  evening  and  in  the  morning  of 
each  day.  And,  moreover,  just  before  the  Earth  enters  it 
in  November,  it  attains  its  greatest  brilliance  in  the  east,  and 
just  after  the  Earth  passes  out  of  it  in  January,  it  attains 
its  greatest  brilliance  in  the  west. 

If  the  light  really  extended  equally  in  all  directions  from 
the  Sun's  equator,  or  even  in  two  opposite  directions  from  it, 
why  should  it  not  be  visible  in  the  month  of  September,  for 
example,  after  sunset  as  well  as  before  daybreak?  One  re- 
cent authority  answers: 

"The  reason  it  cannot  be  well  seen  in  the  summer  and 
autumn  evenings  is,  that  in  our  latitudes  the  course  of  the 
ecliptic  m  the  southwest  is,  during  those  seasons,  so  near  the 
horizon  that  the  light  in  question  is  extinguished  by  the  great 
thickness  of  the  atmosphere  through  which  it  has  to  pass."* 

Here  evidently  is  another  instance  of  judgment  biased  by 
a  prepossessed  erroneous  notion;  for  he  entirely  forgets  that 
the  same  great  thickness  of  the  atmosphere  would  preclude 
its  appearance  in  the  southeast  in  the  morning  as  well  as 
in  the  southwest  in  the  evening  when  in  the  same  paragraph 
he  adds:  "It  may  also  be  seen  rising  from  the  eastern  hor- 
izon just  before  daybreak  in  the  summer  and  autmun." 

The  error  regarding  this  phenomenon,  apparently  enter- 
tained by  every  astronomer  without  exception,  is  so  strangely 

*Newcomb's  Popular  Astronomy,  p.  416. 


244  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [137 

and  palpably  at  variance  with  the  obvious  facts,  that  it  will 
perhaps  excuse  here  the  following  lengthy  description  of  it, 
from  a  memoir  on  La  Lumiere  Zodiacale,  by  P.  Marc  Dechev- 
rens,  S.  J.,  who  made  at  Zi-Ka-Wei,  near  Shanghai,  China, 
regular  observations  of  the  zodiacal  light  from  September  1, 
1875  to  September  1,  1879 : 

(a)  "The  observatory  stands  in  the  middle  of  an  immense 
plain  about  twenty-five  miles  from  the  sea,  and  in  no  direc- 
tion is  its  horizon  broken  by  the  slightest  irregularity  of  the 
country;   moreover,  the  observatory  is  isolated  and  the  few 
neighboring  buildings  do  not  render  the  air  impure  or  inter- 
fere with  the  most  delicate  astronomical  observations. 

(b)  "When  its  two  branches   (the  east  in  the  morning, 
the  west  in  the  evening)  have  the  same  length — not  exceed- 
ing 80°  or  90 p — the  zodiacal  light  assumes  the  same  shape 
on  either  side  of  the  horizon;  it  is  that  of  a  lance-head  or  of 
half  a  lens  a  Ititle  flattened.     But  when  its  length  reaches 
90°,  100°,  and  beyond,  it  is  rather  a  long  band  of  light  of 
nearly  constant  width,  whose  splendour  does  not  sensibly  di- 
minish even  to  its  extremity,  which  it  is  frequently  difficult 
to  find  among  the  brilliant  stars.     Sometimes  near  the  hori- 
zon the  band  appears  as  if  it  were  to  be  enwrapped  near  its 
base  in  an  envelope  yet  more  luminous. 

(c)  "The   luminosity   always    appears    quite    steady   and 
motionless.     Its  color  is  always  pure  white,  like  to  the  Milky 
Way.    *     *     * 

(d)  "The  luminosity  participates  in  the  apparent  diurnal 
motion  of  all  the  stars ;  this  fact  has  been  noticed  by  all  who 
have  observed  the  phenomena  and  is  opposed  to  all  theories 
which  designate  the  terrestial  atmosphere  as  the  place  of  the 
zodiacal  light. 

.(e)  "The  general  features  already  described  are  not  de- 
rived alone  from  the  observations  made  at  Zi-Ka-Wei;  they 
have  been  admitted  by  the  earliest  observers  and  are  gener- 
ally adopted  by  all  servants. 

(f)  "The  following  details,  undescribed  as  far  as  I  know 
by  any  author,  stand  out  prominently  in  the  whole  series  of 
observations. 

(g)  "The  two  branches  of  the  zodiacal  light,  the  eastern 
in  the  morning,  the  western  in  the  evening,  neither  appear 
on,  nor  disappear  from,  the  horizon  at  the  same  time;    but 
their  maximum  of  elongation  takes  place  at  the  same  mo- 
ment. 

(h)  "The  total  duration  for  their  appearance  is  six 
months  for  each  branch. 

(i)  "The  first  luminosity  in  the  east  appears  in  the  early 
days  of  August,  and  the  last  dies  out  at  the  end  of  January. 


137]    CONNEXIONS,    SUNSPOTS,    ZODIACAL   LIGHT,   CORONA     245 

On  the  western  sid6  the  zodiacal  light  is  first  observed  about 
the  end  of  October,  and  entirely  disappears  in  June. 

(j)  "Thus,  during  November,  December,  and  January,  in 
the  morning  before  dawn,  and  in  the  evening  after  twilight, 
there  can  be  viewed  these  two  luminous  bands  among  the 
stars,  making  in  that  part  of  the  sky  an  angle  of  nearly  60° 
with  the  Milky  Way,  whose  brightness  and  purity  they  rival 
— especially  in  parts  nearest  the  Sun. 

(k)  "The  eastern  branch  (in  the  morning)  slowly  elong- 
ates from  its  first  appearance;  on  the  contrary,  the  western 
branch  (in  the  evening)  rapidly  develops,  and  in  a  month 
can  reach  its  maximum  of  elongation.  Inverse  phenomena 
prevail  in  its  disappearance;  that  is  to  say,  the  morning  lu- 
minosity grows  faint  in  a  short  time  after  the  epoch  of  its 
greatest  elongation,  while  in  the  evening  the  opposed  limin- 
osity  varies  very  slowly,  and  disappears  almost  insensibly. 

(1)  "As  to  the  brightness  of  the  two  branches  the  max- 
imum— not  coinciding  with  the  greatest  elongation — was  ob- 
served in  November  for  the  eastern  and  in  February  for  the 
western  branch."* 

Through  all  this  description  there  evidently  runs  in  the 
mind  of  the  observer  the  idea  that  there  are  two  separate 
branches  of  the  zodiacal  light;  whereas,  according  to  the 
description  itself,  there  can  have  been  but  the  one  branch. 
The  side  of  the  Sun  which  becomes  first  visible  in  the  morn- 
ing and  from  which  the  zodiacal  light  projects,  say  in  Sep- 
tember, is  the  opposite  side  to  that  which  last  disappears  be- 
neath the  horizon  in  the  evening  and  from  which  the  oppo- 
site branch  of  the  luminosity  would  be  seen  to  project  if 
there  were  such  a  branch.  But  no  such  branch  has  ever  been 
seen  at  that  time.  It  is  equally  obvious  that,  if,  for  sim- 
plicity, the  Sun  be  regarded  as  stationary  on  its  axis,  the  side 
of  it  which  first  becomes  visible  in  the  morning  from  the 
first  of  August  to  the  last  of  October  and  from  which  the 
morning  branch  is  seen  to  project,  is  precisely  the  same 
side  which  last  disappears  in  the  evening  from  the  first  of 
February  till  June  and  from  which  the  evening  branch  is 
seen  to  project,  This  follows  so  manifestly  from  the  Earth's 
motion  round  the  Sun  that  it  were  superfluous  to  dwell  upon 
it  further.  Therefore,  according  to  the  observations  from 
July  to  November  and  from  January  to  July,  the  zodiacal 

*Report  of  the  Chief  Signal  Officer  U.  S.  Army,  1881,  pp.  908-9. 


246  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [137 

light  is  observed  to  extend  only  from  one  side  of,  or  rather 
in  one  direction  from,  the  Sun;  and  so  there  could  be  pred- 
icated from  these  observations  but^one  branch  of  the  lumi- 
nosity. Then  as  to  the  three  months  during  which  the  lu- 
minosity is  visible  both  in  the  evening  and  in  the  morning  of 
each  day,  nothing  seems  plainer,  if  the  luminosity  occupies 
an  angular  space  of  some  90°  on  one  side  of  the  Sun,*  than 
that,  when  the  Earth  passed  into  the  angular  space  thus  oc- 
cupied, the  luminosity  would  become  visible  on  both  sides 
of  the  horizon.  Paragraph  (k)  of  the  above  description 
really  proves  that  this  is  the  case.  The  rapid  development 
of  the  western  branch,  occupying  only  a  month  from  its  first 
appearance  to  its  maximum  elongation,  finds  its  only  explan- 
ation in  the  passage  of  the  Earth  suddenly  into  the  midst 
of  the  luminosity;  and  the  equally  rapid  decadence  of  the 
eastern  branch  from  its  maximum  elongation  to  its  extinction 
is  explicable  only  by  the  sudden  passage  of  the  Earth  out 
of  the  midst  of  the  luminosity.  Precisely  the  same  thing 
happened  when  the  Earth  passed  through  the  tail  of  Halley's 
comet  in  1910,  when  two  tails  were  seen,  one  in  the  east  and 
one  in  the  west  during  the  time  of  passage. 

This  phenomenon  is  thus  somewhat  elaborately  discussed 
on  account  of  its  great  importance  in  the  new  theory  and 
also  on  account  of  the  singular  misconception  alluded  to, 
which  seems  to  be  generally  inculcated  regarding  it 

In  the  light  of  the  connective  theory,  it  furnishes  the  most 
complete  explanation  of  the  sunspot  periods,  compared  with 
which  the  configurations  of  the  planets  alone  play  but  a  very 
subordinate  part.  The  maxima  of  sunspots  occur  when  Ju- 
piter's primary  connexion  is  about  in  the  last  stage  of  its 
coincidence  with  the  "zodiacal  light",  or  as  it  may  now  be 
termed,  the  Sun's  connexion  with  its  primary  and  sister  suns; 
which  at  the  present  time,  and  for  about  three-quarters  of  a 
century  back,  would  happen  when  that  planet  is  on  the  side 

*This  does  not  necessarily  contradict  paragraph  (b)  of  the  foregoing 
description.  The  "long  band  of  light"  there  mentioned  may  be  only  the 
central  and  densest  portion,  the  rest,  that  is,  the  secondary  components 
of  the  light,  being  too  tenuous  to  be  visible. 


138]    CONNEXIONS,    SUNSPOTS,    ZODIACAL   LIGHT,    CORONA      247 

of  the  Sun  where  the  Earth  is  in  January  and  February.  In 
the  first  part  of  the  period  of  coincidence  of  the  two  great 
connexions,  the  solar  vapors  and  gases  would  be  ascending, 
so  that  the  maximum  of  descent  of  cooled  material  would 
occur  in  the  latter  part  of  that  period,  or  even  just  after  co- 
incidence was  over  and  the  elevation  of  the  solar  atmosphere 
on  that  side  was  at  a  maximum  rate  of  reduction  down  to  the 
general  average.  And  the  time  of  the  sunspot  minima 
(though  thus  less  regularly  determined)  would,  in  general, 
occur  when  the  two  chief  connexions  were  as  far  apart  as 
possible,  or  when  Jupiter  occupies  that  side  of  the  Sun  where 
the  Earth  is  in  July  and  August.  It  is  very  obvious  also  that 
the  maxima  and  minima  of  the  spots  would  not  be  suddenly, 
but  slowly  and  gradually  attained,  as  the  two  connexions 
(modified,  of  course,  by  the  other  connexions  also)  moved 
gradually,  in  the  course  of  five  or  six  years,  into,  or  out  of, 
coincidence. 

These  theoretic  deductions  appear  to  be  strongly  corrobo- 
rated by  actual  observation.  Assuming  for  the  present  (what 
will  shortly  be  more  fully  shown)  that  the  long  streamers 
or  rays  of  the  corona  are  really  portions  of  the  Sun's  con- 
nexions with  the  planets  and  other  heavenly  bodies,  the  fol- 
lowing quotation  clearly  shows  the  connection  of  the  spots 
with  the  movements  of  the  connexions : 

"The  coronal  streamers  follow  the  spots — by  which  1  mean 
that  the  corona  and  the  coronal  streamers  put  on  their  great- 
est intensity,  according  as  the  spots  have  moved  nearer  the 
equator.  When  we  have  the  minimum  sunspot  period,  you 
can  hardly  call  that  equatorial  extension  a  streamer  at  all, 
because  it  is  so  dim."* 

When  the  spots  move  nearer  to  the  equator,  it  is  about 
the  time  of  maximum  sunspots,  and  this,  we  are  told,  is  the 
time  v-hon  the  coronal  streamers  put  on  their  greatest  in- 
tensity, in  precise  accordance  with  the  theory,  f 

138.      Explanation    of    Anomalous    Sunspot    Periods. — But 

*.T.  Nci  man  Lockyer,  Nature,  34,  44. 

iTho  vaiicus  peculiarities  of  sunspots,  such  as  their  equatorial  drift- 
ing ar.d  t'uir  gi  eater  angular  velocity  in  the  U  wer  latitrdt-s  <f  th  un. 
will  VM  discussed  farther  on. 


248  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [138 

still  this  explanation  is  apparently  imperfect;  for,  if  we  go 
back  as  far  as  fairly  reliable  sunspot  records  extend,  we 
find  that  Jupiter  no  longer  comes  into  opposition  with  the 
Earth  in  July  and  August,  but  rather  towards  the  end  of 
the  year,  Thus,  in  the  sunspot  maxima  of  1829,  1817,  and 
1804,  the  times  of  opposition  of  Jupiter  were  in  December, 
December,  and  November,  respectively;  while  in  the  maxima 
of  1790  and  1779  they  come  back  again  as  far  as  September. 
It  has  been  observed,  however,  that  the  three  former  sunspot 
maxima  were  of  little  more  than  half  the  average  extent.* 

Indeed,  there  appears  to  be  between  one  and  two  cen- 
turies at  that  time  during  which  the  sunspots  were  very  ir- 
regular; for  in  the  period  1672-1713,  there  were  scarcely  any 
spots  at  all.f  It  is  significant,  however,  that  the  elonga- 
tion of  the  zodiacal  light  suffered  a  corresponding  diminu- 
tion in  these  times.  J  It  is  possible  that  these  facts  may  be 
accounted  for  by  the  compound  nature  of  the  zodiacal  light, 
or,  in  other  words,  the  Sun's  connexion  with  its  primary  and 
sister  suns.  If  the  system  of  which  the  Sun  is  a  planetary 
member  should  have  a  giant  sister  sun  near  the  latter,  as 
Jupiter  is  to  the  Earth,  the  Sun's  connexion  with  such  a  body 
might  easily  change  its  direction  from  the  Sun  by  a  consid- 
erable .angle  in  the  course  of  a  few  centuries,  just  as  the 
direction  of  Jupiter's  connexion  with  the  Earth  changes  with 
respect  to  the  latter  body  in  the  course  of  a  few  months. 
This  would  obviously  profoundly  modify  the  angular  distri- 
bution and  density  of  the  Sun's  connexion. 

The  Sun  is  said  to  have  a  proper  orbital  motion  of  its 
own  of  some  20  miles  per  second,  the  apex  of  which  is  said 
to  be  in  or  near  the  constellation  Hercules,  This  direction 
of  the  Sun's  motion,  which  is  nearly  that  of  the  greatest 
linear  extension,  or  towards  the  center,  of  the  sidereal  sphere, 
does  not  harmonize  with  the  new  views,  for  it  is  almost  in 
the  direction  opposite  to  that  in  which  the  Sun's  primary 

*See  Prof.  Balfour  Stewart's  diagram,   Nature,   33,   252. 

fNature,  39,  469. 

tSee  O.  T.  Sherman's  diagram,  Nature,  38,  595. 


139]    CONNEXIONS,    SUNSPOTS,    ZODIACAL   LIGHT,   CORONA     249 

theoretically  lies,  that  of  the  zodiacal  light;  whereas  it  should 
be  at  right  angles  to  the  latter.  However  the  subject  is  only 
in  the  first  stages  of  its  investigation  and  may  be  affected 
by  some  error.  According  to  the  netv  theory  the  Sun  lies 
nearly  between  its  own  primary  system  and  the  center  of 
the  Sidereal  System;  and  if  it  revolves  about  in  the  same  di- 
rection and  plane  as  the  Earth  does  around  itself,  it  should 
move  towards  the  constellation  Virgo  in  R.  A.  180°,  instead 
of  towards  the  constellation  Hercules  in  R.  A.  270°. 

Now  if  the  precession  of  the  equinoxes  be  chiefly  due 
to  the  Sun's  orbital  motion  in  a  plane  somewhat  different 
from  that  of  the  ecliptic,  as  the  new  theory  appears  to  post- 
ulate (in  place  of  the  rather  lame  explanation  of  it  based  on 
the  theory  of  gravitation),  it  indicates  a  period  of  some  25,- 
000  years  for  the  Sun's  orbital  revolution,  and,  of  course, 
a  considerably  smaller  period  for  a  supposed  inner  giant  sis- 
ter sun,  the  direction  of  whose  connexion  with  the  Sun  is 
supposed  to  change.  Such  conditions  would  easily  permit  of 
a  gradual  change  from  a  more  diffuse  or  evenly  distributed 
form  of  the  Sun's  connexions  with  its  primary  and  sister 
suns  to  such  a  degree  of  concentration  some  two  centuries 
ago  as  would  account  for  the  observed  change  of  sunspot 
phenomena  at  that  time.  Also  movement  of  external  sister 
suns  would  cause  precisely  similar  effects. 

139.  Existence  of  Invisible  Heavenly  Bodies. — It  is  true 
that,  from  the  present  view-point,  we  observe  no  stellar  par- 
allax of  sufficient  magnitude  to  account  either  for  the  Sun's 
revolution  in  this  period  or  for  the  supposed  motion  of  a 
isister  sun.  But  from  the  new  view-point,  the  sun  is  located 
comparatively  near  the  center  of  the  Sidereal  System,  which 
would  evidently  lessen  the  apparent  displacement  of  the 
outer  stars  due  to  the  Sun's  motion.  The  stars  of  the  sys- 
tems more  central  than  that  of  the  Sun  would  be  smaller 
than  in  the  outer  systems,  as  in  the  Solar  System,  and  might 
for  this  reason  be  invisible  to  us.  If  the  Sun's  velocity  be 
20  miles  per  second  and  its  period  25,000  years,  as  suggested 
in  the  preceding  article,  the  distance  of  its  primary  would 


250  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [140 

l>e  over  two  millions  of  millions  of  miles  (about  800  times 
the  distance  of  Neptune);  and,  by  analogy,  the  distance  of 
the  next  system  inwards  would  be  so  much  greater  that  the 
theoretically  smaller  bodies  there  "would  be  beyond  our  tel- 
escopic vision.  And  as  for  the  sister  suns  whose  motions 
would  disturb  the  distribution  of  the  Sun's  principal  connex- 
ions, and  whose  parallaxes  would  evidently  be  greater  than 
any  yet  discovered,  they  may  be  dark  bodies  and  invisible 
for  that  reason.  Of  the  principal  planets  and  satellites  of 
the  Solar  System  not  one  is  self-luminous  according  to  the 
present  theory;  and  by  the  new  theory,  not  less  than  nine 
out  of  every  ten  would  be  invisible  to  us  if  not  illuminated 
by  some  other  body.  The  same  conditions  may  supervene  in 
the  larger  system  of  which  the  Sun  is  a  planet;  and  the  cen- 
tral body  or  sun  of  a  system  is  just  as  likely  to  be  dark, 
from  surface  development,  as  the  other  principal  members. 

The  subject  is  a  vast  one,  and  this  explanation  is  offered 
as  a  mere  conjecture.  But  the  observed  fact  that  the  zodi- 
acal light  diminishes  in  density  and  elongation  contempora- 
neously with  the  irregularity  and  diminution  of  the  sunspots, 
evidently  points  to  some  such  relationship  of  the  phenomena 
concerned.  In  any  case,  the  maxima  and  minima  of  sunspots 
are  determined,  according  to  the  new  theory,  by  the  conjunc- 
tions and  oppositions  of  Jupiter,  principally,  witn  respect  to 
the  zodiacal  light.  Conjunction  of  these  two  factors  has  co- 
incided with  maximum  sunspots  and  opposition  with  mini- 
mum sunspots  lor  nearly  a  century  past;  both  coincidences 
have  the  appearance  of  continuing  for  many  years  to  come; 
and,  so  tar  as  known,  when  one  of  the  two  factors  is  weakened 
in  intensity  or  individuality,  the  sunspot  phenomena  become 
correspondingly  irregular,  or  almost  entirely  disappear. 

This  is  not  the  first  time  that  the  movement  of  the  planet 
Jupiter  (and  of  other  planets  also)  has  been  suspected  of 
bearing  a  definite  relation  to  the  sunspot  periods.  But  owing 
to  the  disparity  of  the  two  periods — that  of  Jupiter  being 
11.86  years,  while  the  sunspot  cycle  is  about  11.2  years — the 
theory  has  not  been  generally  accepted.  By  the  new  theory 


140]    CONNEXIONS,    SUNSFOTS,    ZODIACAL  LIGHT,    CORONA     251 

this  disparity  is  modified  by  the  actions  of  the  three  other 
outer  planets  and,  at  the  present  time,  very  probably  also 
by  the  angular  variations  of  the  zodiacal  light. 

140.  Sidereal  Connexions  and  Sunspots. — Still  another 
difficulty  has,  no  doubt,  oceured  to  trip  reader.  The  zodiacal 
light,  or  the  Sun's  primary  connexion,  extends  from  that  lu- 
minary in  one  direction,  but  the  line  of  greatest  sidereal 
extension  is  almost  exactly  in  the  opposite  direction;  and 
since  trie  greatest  amount  of  solar  connexions  must  lie  in  this 
last  direction,  how  can  it  be  that,  when  Jupiter's  connexion 
coincides  with  it,  there  is  a  minimum  of  solar  atmospheric 
elevation  and,  consequently,  of  sunspots?  The  new  theory 
meets  this  with  the  answer  that,  as  already  intimated  on 
several  occasions,  it  is  not  the  quantity  of  the  connexions 
which  affects  the  solar,  or  any  other,  atmosphere  so  much 
as  the  kind.  The  sidereal  connexions  on  the  one  side  are 
about  all  with  distantly  related  bodies.  They  have  been 
sifted  again  and  again  from  the  secondary  connexions  of  the 
successive  orders  of  the  sidereal  sub-systems  down  to  the 
Solar.  At  every  sifting  the  stronger  components  of  the  con- 
nexions were,  in  all  probability,  left  behind,  and  the  more 
superfluous,  least  used,  and  weaker  components  taken  up. 
So  that  when  the  Sun,  as  it  separated  from  its  parent  sun, 
took  up  its  due  proportion  of  the  already  more  than  thrice- 
blown  sidereal  connexions  of  that  body,  the  very  faintest, 
weakest,  and  literally  most  useless  components  must  have 
fallen  to  its  share. 

And  these  are  the  connexions  which,  though  comparatively 
i^reat  in  quantity,  owing  to  the  comparative  greatness  of  their 
number,  extend  from  the  Sun  in  the  opposite  direction  to  that 
of  its  primary  connexion.  The  latter,  on  the  contrary,  is  in 
its  pristine  strength,  and,  together  with  the  next  most  im- 
portant connexions  in  this  respect  (with  the  exception  of  the 
primary  connexions  of  the  planets),  namely,  the  secondary 
connexions  with  the  Sun's  sister  planets,  it  serves  as  a  sup- 
port, in  and  around  which  the  surrounding  solar  atmosphere 
may  collect  and  up-climb.  The  Sun's  primary  connexion  is 


252  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [141 

also  in  a  state  of  strain,  owing  to  its  function  of  restraining 
the  Sun  in  its  orbital  motion,  and  this  strain  would,  of  itself, 
serve  to  elevate  the  solar  atmosphere  within  it;  .whereas  the 
shlere.il  connexions  have  no  su»:h^  restraining  function,  ara 
too  refined  even  to  transmit  heat-motion,  -md  serve  onJ\,  to 
convey  a  faint  amount  of  light,  and  even  this  possibly  con- 
sisting of  the  most  refined  components  of  lif.ht-motion.  All 
this  is  also  implied  in  the  application  of  the  connective  the- 
ory to  the  cosmical  distribution  of  heat  and  light,  and  to  the 
aerial  and  the  oceanic  tides,  and  is  further  elucidated  in  the 
discussion  of  these  subjects. 

141  Connective  Variation  Upon  the  Earth  by  the  Sun's 
Primary  System. — The  variation  upon  the  Earth  of  its  con- 
nexions with  the  Sun's  primary  system  has  already  been 
included  in  the  sidereal  factor,  because  both  have  practically 
the  same  period.  At  the  present  time,  however,  these  two 
factors  are  almost  diametrically  opposed.  In  effect  It  amounts 
to  the  same  as  if  the  sidereal  factor  had  been  found  less 
powerful,  or  the  solar  factor  more  powerful,  by  the  amount 
of  the  factor  now  considered.  The  annual  results  and  indica- 
tions of  table  III  are  wholly  unaffected  by  it  for  reasons  al- 
ready stated.  And,  at  the  present  time,  it  appears  to  be  of 
theoretical  importance  as  corroborating  the  Flood  legends  al- 
ready referred  to.  Since  the  Sun's  parent  is  presumably 
much  larger  than  the  Sun  itself,  the  value  of  the  variation  of 
this  component  can  not  be  much  less  than  that  of  the  solar 
factor.  Indeed,  if  we  should  assume  that  the  former  were 
as  much  larger  than  the  Sun,  as  the  latter  is  larger  than  the 
Earth,  then  the  density  of  the  Earth's  connexion  with  the 
Sun's  primary  might  be  no  less  than  that  of  the  Earth's  con- 
nexion with  the  Sun  itself;  in  which  case  it  would  be  some 
GO  times  more  powerful  than  the  solar  factor,  because  its 
linear  variation  is  that  much  greater.  Now  as  the  Sun  very 
slowly  revolves  around  its  primary,  this  factor,  instead  of 
being  in  opposition  with  the  sidereal  factor,  as  both  it  and 
the  solar  factor  now  is,  would  eventually  be  brought  into 
conjunction  with  the  sidereal  factor,  and  so  cause  much  more 


142]    CONNEXIONS,    SUNSPOTS,    ZODIACAL   LIGHT,    CORONA      253 

intense  periods  of  precipitation  and  drouth  than  the  conjunc- 
tion of  the  latter  with  the  solar  factor.  And  if  the  period 
of  the  Sun's  orbital  revolution  be  only  25,000  years,  such 
conjunction  would  have  happened  some  12,500  years  ago. 
This  period  is  less  than  one-fourth  the  greater  period  of  the 
solar  factor;  so  that  approximate  conjunction  of  all  three 
factors  would  take  place  at  rarer  intervals.  This  obviously 
would  modify  the  age  of  the  Earth  as  determined  from  the 
present  rate  of  denudation  and  deposition. 

The  last  remaining  significant  factor  of  the  connective 
variation  in  our  atmosphere  has  now  been  considered,  The 
almost  geometrically  diminishing  massiveness  of  the  con- 
nexions with  the  arithmetically  diminishing  relationship  of 
the  bodies  they  connect  (owing  partly  to  the  smallness  of  the 
derived,  as  compared  with  the  primary,  bodies)  would  render 
the  value  of  any  individual  connexion  between  bodies  related 
beyond  the  second  degree  of  kinship,  too  small  to  affect 
perceptibly  the  results  already  obtained. 

142.  The  Solar  Corona. — Since,  in  the  crepuscular  light  of 
the  dawn  and  the  twilight,  there  is  faintly  observable  the 
Sun's  primary  connexion,  or  at  least  a  portion  of  what  we 
suppose  to  be  the  Sun's  primary  connexion,  extending  out- 
wards to  its  parent  system,  the  question  arises — Why  are  we 
not  able  to  observe  the  planetary  connexions  at  the  same 
time?  The  answer  is  that  the  planetary  connexions  are  sup- 
posably  much  less  voluminous  and  massive  than  the  solar 
connexions;  and  that,  consequently,  the  former,  if  visible 
at  all,  would  be  so  only  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of 
the  Sun,  where,  perhaps,  extremely  rare  gaseous  constit- 
uents arising  from  the  Sun  itself  might  contribute  to  their 
visibility.  But,  at  the  time  the  "zodiacal  light"  is  observed, 
the  immediate  neighborhood  of  the  Sun  is,  of  course,  below 
the  horizon. 

There  are,  however,  certain  rare  occasions  when  the  face 
of  the  Sun  is  hid  from,  while  its  immediate  neighborhood  is 
exposed  to,  our  view:  and  these  occasions  furnish  us  the 
strongest  possible  evidence  confirmatory  of  the  existence  of 


254  THE   CONNECTIVE   THEORY  [142 

these  connexions,  as  above  surmised.  When  the  Sun  is 
eclipsed  by  the  Moon,  rays,  or  streamers,  are  seen  to  pro- 
ject outwards  from  the  solar  surface  in  various  directions 
and  to  various  distances.  Prof.  Langley  stated  that,  in  the 
eclipse  of  1878,  the  streamers  could  be  traced  to  a  distance 
of  14,000,000  miles.  The  effects  of  fore-shortening  would 
probably  add  considerably  to  this  value.  These  streamers 
appear  perfectly  steady  and  permanent  so  long  as  circum- 
stances permit  them  to  be  seen  at  one  time;  but  between 
one  eclipse  and  another,  they  vary  their  positions;  so  that, 
in  two  eclipses  separated  by  some  five  or  six  years,  their 
positions  are  not  at  all  alike. 

What  are  these  rays  or  streamers  of  the  Sun's  corona? 
The  most  eminent  students  of  solar  phyics  tell  us  frankly 
that  they  do  not  know. 

"The  sun  is  doubtless  surrounded  by  a  gaseous  atmos- 
phere of  a  certain  extent,  but  there  are  a  number  of  reasons 
why  ihe  corona  should  not  be  regarded  as  a  prolongation  of 
this  atmosphere.  A  gas  even  a  hundred  or  a  thousand  times 
lighter  than  hydrogen,  at  the  height  of  the  corona,  would, 
at  the  sun's  surface,  be  heavier  than  metals;  a  state  of 
things  which  spectroscopic  and  other  observations  show  can 
not  be  the  true  one."* 

The  same  scientist  also  speaks  of  "the  relative  perma- 
nency of  the  coronal  forms  during  several  weeks",  and  states 
further:  "If  the  forces  to  which  the  corona  is  due  resides 
in  the  sun,  the  corona  ought,  of  course,  to  revolve  with  it; 
but  if  the  corona  is  produced  by  causes  extraneous  to  the 
sun,  it  may  be  otherwise."  The  fact  is  that  the  corona  does 
not  revolve  with  the  Sun,  as  its  "relative  permanency  during 
several  weeks"  indubitably  attests.  But  that  it  has  a  pecul- 
iar revolution  of  its  own,  the  following  extract  from  an  ex- 
cellent authority  sufficiently  proves: 

"If  the  photographs  taken  during  eclipses  in  the  past 
twenty  years  are  compared  with  each  other,  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  corona  varies  in  a  regular  way  with  the  state  of  the 
sun's  surface,  although  there  are  irregular  minor  changes. 
At  the  sunspot  minimum,  the  corona  is  much  more  regular 

*Dr.  Huggins,  Royal  Institution,  Feb.  20,  1884. 


142]    CONNEXIONS,    SUNSPOTS,    ZODIACAL   LIGHT,    CORONA      255 

than  at  the  sunspot  maximum.  At  the  maximum  there  is 
practically  no  regularity  at  all;  the  long  streamers  go  up 
sometimes  in  one  direction  and  sometimes  in  another,  and 
this  last  year  (1882),  near  the  sunspot  maximum,  there  was 
absolutely  no  symmetry  in  the  appearance  of  the  corona."* 

This,  as  well  as  the  quotation  from  Lockyer  (Art.  137), 
is  in  precise  accordance  with  the  theoretic  conclusion  just 
discussed  regarding  the  relative  aggregation  of  the  principal 
connexions  at  maximum  sun-spots  and  their  more  equable 
diffusion  on  all  sides  of  the  Sun  at  sunspot  minimum. 

By  the  new  theory,  the  coronal  phenomena  are  understood 
at  a  glance  to  be  nothing  more  than  the  Sun's  connexions 
with  the  heavenly  bodies.  The  solar  connexions  with  certain 
bodies  would,  at  times,  owing  to  the  varying  positions  of 
these  bodies,  lie  in  about  the  same  direction  from  the  Sun, 
and  thus  would  become  visible  to  us  as  a  "ray",  or  "stream- 
er", or  "radial  glory."  The  visibility  could  not  extend  very 
far,  however,  as  the  connexions  diverge  as  they  proceed  out- 
wards from  the  Sun,  and  thus  the  density  of  the  "ray"  is 
diminished.  It  also  becomes  intelligible  that  the  positions 
of  the  "streamers"  do  not  vary  during  the  time  of  any  one 
eclipse,  but  that,  during  the  far  greater  period  between  eclip- 
ses, remarkable  changes  in  their  positions  take  place;  all  of 
which  observation  shows  to  be  the  case.  Another  signifi- 
cant feature  is  described  by  Lockyer  as  follows: 

"At  both  the  poles,  north  and  south,  there  is  a  wonderful 
curving,  right  and  left;  this  out-curving  having  been  one  of 
the  most  exquisite  things  wnich  it  is  possible  to  imagine. 

"There  is  further  evidence  indicating  that  the  equatorial 
extension  on  the  photograph  may  only,  after  all,  have  been 
a  part  of  a  much  more  extended  phenomenon,  one  going  to 
almost  incredible  distances — considering  it  as  a  solar  atmos- 
phere— from  the  sun  iself. 

"It  has  already  been  stated  that  at  that  eclipse  one  ob- 
server took  exterme  precautions  to  guard  his  eyes  from  being 
fatigued  by  the  light  of  the  inner  corona,  which  sometimes 
is  so  bright  that  observers  have  mistaken  it  for  the  limb  of 
the  sun  itself.  What  this  gentleman,  Prof.  Newcomb,  did 
was  to  erect  a  screen  which  covered  the  moon  and  a  space 
12'  high  around  it.  The  result  was,  that  as  soon  as  he 
took  his  station  at  the  commencement  of  totality,  he  saw  a 

*Prof.  Edward  S.  Holden,  Account  of  Progress  in  Astronomy  in  1883. 


256  THE    CONNECTIVE   THEORY  [143 

tremendous  extension  of  the  sun's  equator  on  both  sides  of 
the  dark  moon,  the  extension  being  greater  than  that  recorded 
in  the  photograph.  It  does  not  follow  that  the  photograph 
gives  us  the  totality  of  the  extension;  it  may  be  that  the 
extended  portions  may  have  bee.n  so  delicately  illuminated, 
that  they  would  not  impress  their  image  on  the  photographic 
plate  in  the  time  during  which  the  plate  was  exposed,  or  that 
the  light  itself  was  poor  in  blue  rays.  So  considerable  was 
this  extension,  amounting  to  six  or  seven  diameters  of  the 
dark  moon,  which  practically  may  be  taken  to  be  the  same 
as  that  of  the  sun  behind  it,  that  Prof,  Newcomb  had  at  once 
suggested  to  him  the  zodiacal  light  .  .  .  The  drawing  made 
in  1867  gives  us  the  same  result.  We  again  get  the  equatorial 
extension  east  and  west,  and  the  wonderful  outcurving  right 
and  left  from  the  sun's  poles."* 

As  all  the  members  of  the  Solar  System,  and  also  in  all 
probability  the  Sun's  primary  and  sister  system's  lie  very 
nearly  in  the  plane  of  the  Sun's  equator,  this  "tremendous 
extension  of  the  corona  in  the  direction  of  the  solar  equator", 
as  well  as  "the  wonderful  outcurving  right  and  left  from  the 
sun's  poles",  become  at  once  intelligible  by  the  new  theory, 
and  serve  moreover  as  a  wonderful  corroboration  of  it 

By  this  theory  all  other  bodies  of  our  system  have  a  corona, 
as  well  as  the  Sun.  But  as  the  latter  is  a  central  body 
and  vastly  larger  than  any  of  them  its  corona  would  there- 
fore be  far  more  dense,  and  so  more  likely  to  be  visible  to  us. 

143.  Relative  Visibility  of  the  Various  Solar  Connexions, 
and  their  Real  Direction^  as  Viewed  in  the  Rays  of  the 
Corona. — But  a  further  question  arises — If  some  of  the  plane- 
tary connexions  are  visible  at  the  time  of  a  solar  eclipse, 
ought  not  the  solar  connexion,  or  the  zodiacal  light,  owing  to 
its  greater  density  and  prominence,  to  be  much  more  con- 
spicuously visible,  and  to  a  vastly  greater  distance?  To 
which  the  reply  is,  that  while  the  solar  connexion  would  for 
this  reason  be  more  conspicuously  visible — and,  in  general, 
very  probably  is  so — it  would  not  reasonably  be  expected  to 
be  seen  to  a  much  greater  distance  owing  to  the  much  greater 
amount  of  sunlight  in  the  air  during  an  eclipse  than  at  the 
time  it  is  viewed  as  the  zodiacal  light. 

As    the    real    position-angles    of    the    coronal    streamers 

*Nature,  34,  42-3. 


143]    CONNEXIONS,    SUNSPOTS,    ZODIACAL   LIGHT,    CORONA      257 

have  not  in  the  past  been  very  systematically  observed,  it  is 
extremely  doubtful  that  the  real  positions  of  the  planets 
could  be  deduced  from  the  apparent  positions  of  the  coronal 
rays  observed  in  past  eclipses.  But  one  eclipse,  that  of  July 
29,  1878,  observed  on  the  summit  of  Pike's  Peak,  Colorado, 
from  the  minute  details  of  it  given  in  the  Report  for  1880  of 
the  Chief  Signal  Officer,  U.  S.  Army,  who,  with  several  other 
distinguished  observers,  was  personally  present,  appears 
strikingly  to  show  the  two  principal  connexions  in  opposition 
with  each  other  (it  being  the  year  of  sunspot  minimum),  the 
solar  connexion  extending  outwards  in  the  background  be- 
yond the  Sun,  and  that  of  Jupiter  extending  in  the  direction 
of  the  Earth,  the  two  planets  being  then  almost  exactly  in 
conjunction.  These  two  great  streamers  and  their  apparent- 
ly direct  opposition  to  one  another,  are  the  only  prominent 
characteristics  of  the  corona  observed  on  the  Peak  itself,  and 
they  are  the  most  prominent  characteristics  in  the  twenty- 
seven  sketches  of  the  eclipse  at  different  places  which  accom- 
pany the  Report,. 

"The  positions  of  the  rays  or  beams  seen  by  the  different 
observers  all  agree  with  each  other  within  the  limits  of 
accuracy  of  the  sketches.  However  various  may  have  been 
the  impressions  received  by  the  observers,  yet  each  failed  to 
see  and  record  any  material  change  during  the  two  or  three 
minutes  that  the  corona  was  visible  to  him.  We  thus  have 
twenty-five  little  intervals  of  two  or  three  minutes  each, 
many  of  which  overlap  each  other  so  that  in  effect  there  is 
a  continuous  line  of  testimony  to  the  permanence  of  the 
corona."  (p.  922). 

A  casual  glance  at  the  streamers  (as  observed  on  the 
Peak  by  H.  H.  C,.  Dunwoody,  for  instance)  does  not,  indeed, 
give  the  impression  that  one  of  them  extends  towards  the 
observer  and  the  other  beyond  the  Sun;  for  both  apparently 
extend  at  right  angles  to  the  line  of  sight.  But  this  would 
obviously  be  the  case  Ijpwever  small  the  inclination  to  the 
line  of  sight  (the  Earth  was  4^°  in  advance  of  Jupiter  at 
the  time,  and,  it  being  about  4  o'clock  P.  M.,  local  time,  Jup- 
iter's connexion  would  therefore  appear  to  extend  from  the 
upper  left-hand  corner  of  the  Sun),  for  the  same  reason  that 
the  rays  of  a  lighted  candle,  which  really  enter  the  nearly 


258  THE    CONNECTIVE   THEORY  [144 

closed  eye  of  the  observer,  appear  to  him  to  extend  from  the 
flarne  in  opposite  directions  almost  at  right  angles  to  their 
real  direction.  It  is  therefore  a  matter  of  some  difficulty  to 
determine  the  real  drections  in  which  the  coronal  streamers 
extend;  and  too  much,  perhaps,  is  assumed  when  the  two 
principal  connexions  in  the  sketches  alluded  to  are  regarded 
as  in  opposition.  But  the  prediction  is  here  ventured  that, 
with  more  systematic  observations  in  the  future  with  respect 
to  this  special  subject,  the  directions  of  the  coronal  rays  will 
be  found  to  coincide  exactly  with  those  in  which  the  bodies 
lie  to  which  they  respectively  extend;  and  two  of  these  bodies 
will  be  Jupiter  and  Saturn,  while  one  or  more  will  lie  beyond 
the  planetary  limits  and  belong  to  th«  Sun's  parent  system.* 
Indeed,  only  nine  years  after  this  prediction  was  first 
published,  there  appeared  the  following  corroboration  of  it: 

"In  the  picture  of  the  solar  corona  in  the  eclipse  of  Aug. 
9,  1896  presented  here  by  Nicolaus  Kaulbars  (Lieutenant- 
Gtneral  and  Chief  of  Staff  Finland  Miltiary  District)  of  Solar 
Eclipse  Expedition,  Russian  Astronomical  Society,  Jupiter's 
streamer  is  seen  extending  to  the  right  to  just  about  the 
position  of  that  planet  as  seen  from  the  Earth  at  that  time.f 

144.  Summary  of  Results  from  Planetary  Connexion  Va- 
riatons. — The  inquiry  into  the  connection  between  the  plane- 
tary motions  and  the  phenomena  of  precipitation  in  our 
atmosphere,  spots  on  the  Sun,  the  zodiacal  light,  the  solar 
corona,  etc.,  is  now  completed;  and  while  no  evidence  what- 
ever, going  to  disprove  such  connection  has  been  met  with, 
many  valuable  evidences  have  been  found  which  go  to  prove 
that  such  connection  really  exists.  The  principal  portions  of 
these  evidences  may  be  here  briefly  recapitulated. 

According  to  the  principal  assumption  of  the  connective 
theory  that  the  planets  are  connected  with  the  Sun  and  with 
one  another  by  material  cords  or  connexions,  the  relative 

*The  present  writer,  during  a  visit  to  one  of  the  most  prominent  ob- 
servers of  solar  eclipses,  personally  appcalvd  to  him  to  make  a  special 
object  of  determining  the  real  directions  of  the  coronal  streamers  in  fu- 
ture eclipses,  with  special  reference  to  the  positions  of  the  principal 
planets.  He  expressed  his  belief  at  first  that  these  extended  in  all  direc- 
tions from  the  Sun,  and  it  was  extremely  difficult  to  make  him  compre- 
hend the  effect  of  foreshortening,  as  explained  above;  but  he  finally 
admitted  it.  However,  after  many  years  of  waiting,  subsequent  inquiry 
by  letter  elicited  no  response  whatever  regarding  this  point. 

fNature,  55,  298. 


144]      CONNEXIONS,  SUNSPOTS,  ZODIACAL  LIGHT,  CORONA       259 

variations  of  the  supposed  connective  substance  in  the  case 
of  each  principal  planet  of  the  Solar  System  were  computed, 
and  these  bodies  which,  other  things  equal,  produced  com- 
paratively insignificant  variations,  were  disregarded.  Cal- 
culating the  variations  for  each  of  the  remaining  bodies  for 
each  month  of  a  period  of  nearly  a  century,  and  obtaining  the 
algebraic  sum  of  the  results,  both  for  each  month  and  for 
each  year,  the  first  evidence  in  favor  of  the  existence  of 
such  interplanetary  connexions  was  brought  to  light  in  the 
fact  that  the  periods  of  years  during  which  the  quantity  of 
the  connective  substance  in  our  atmosphere  would  be  below 
the  average  and  above  the  average,  were  found  to  be  almost 
precisely  parallel  with  the  periods  of  years  during  which  the 
area  of  black  spots  on  the  Sun  was  below  the  average  and 
above  the  average,  respectively;  the  chance  occurence  of  such 
a  parallelism  for  so  long  a  period  on  any  other  basis  being 
deemed  improbable  in  the  highest  degree. 

The  second  evidence  for  the  existence  of  material  inter- 
planetary connexions  was  the  equally  exact  coincidence  of 
the  periods  during  which  the  connective  substance  in  our 
atmosphere  would  be  above  the  average  with  those  periods 
during  which  the  auroras  and  the  quantity  of  atmospheric 
precipitation  were  actually  observed  to  be  in  excess  of  the  av- 
erage; and  also  with  those  in  which  the  barometric  pressure 
was  observed  to  be  below  the  average;  the  most  reasonable 
view  being  that  a  considerable  excess  of  the  connective  sub- 
stance in  our  atmosphere  would  cause  a  corresponding  excess 
of  auroras  (which  would  be  merely  streams  of  the  connective 
fluid  itself),  and  of  atmospheric  precipitation  (which  would, 
in  part,  be  simply  a  condensed  form  of  the  connective  fluid) ; 
the  diminution  of  pressure  accompanying  the  excess  of  con- 
nective substance  being  due  to  the  high  elevation,  or  region 
of  diminished  attraction  of  gravity,  which  the  rarer  atmos- 
pheric vapors  are,  in  consequence  of  the  more  elevated  con- 
nective atmosphere,  enabled  to  attain,* 

*In  autumn,  the  Earth  approaches  the  Sun  and  also  the  Sun's  primary 
— two  of  the  principal  sources  of  connective  variation  upon  the  Earth. 
It  has  occurred  to  the  writer  that  one  form  of  precipitation  due  to  the 
accumulation  of  connective  substance  then  taking  place  in  our  atmosphere 
owing  to  this  cause,  may  be  the  otherwise  mysterious  gossamer,  or 


260  THE  CONNECTIVE   THEORY  [144 

The  third  evidence  supporting  the  material  planetary  con- 
nexions was  the  correspondence  of  the  deductions  derived 
from  them  to  the  views  of  modern  astronomers,  according 
to  which  our  world  is  situated  considerably  to  one  side  of  the 
center  of  the  Sidereal  System.  'Agreeably  to  this  view,  the 
connective  substance  would  accumulate  on  the  Earth  while  it 
was  moving  towards  the  point  in  which  the  greatest  linear  ex- 
tension of  the  heavens  from  the  Earth  lies,  and  would  be 
drained  away  while  moving  in  the  opposite  direction.  The 
former  movement  occurs  in  the  first  half  of  the  year,  imply- 
ing, when  necessary  allowances  are  made,  more  than  the 
average  precipitation  during  our  summer  season;  and  the  lat- 
ter occurs  in  the  latter  half  of  the  year,  equally  implying  less 
than  the  average  precipitation  in  our  winter  season — all  of 
which  is  in  accordance  with  actual  observation. 

The  fourth  evidence  found  in  support  of  material  plan- 
etary connexions  was  the  simple  manner  in  which  the  sun- 
spot  periods  admitted  of  explanation  by  means  of  them.  It 
was  found  that  the  sunspot  maximum  nearly  always  occurred 
when  the  great  planet,  Jupiter,  was  in  a  certain  longitude 
with  respect  to  the  Sun,  or  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  great 
stars  Aldebaran,  Capella,  Sirius,  Alpha  and  Beta  Orionis, 
Procyon,  Pollux,  and  Regulus — all  of  which  are  of  the  first 
magnitude  and  form  such  a  splendid  galaxy  as  no  other  area 
of  the  heavens  can  nearly  approach.  Pushing  the  inquiry 
further  it  was  found  that  the  vast  luminous  band  called  the 
zodiacal  light  extended  precisely  in  this  direction,  and  occu- 
pied approximately  the  same  heliocentric  angle  as  the  group 
of  stars  just  named.  It  became  evident,  therefore,  that  the 
so-called  zodiacal  light  is  nothing  else  than  the  material  con- 
nexions uniting  our  Sun  with  bodies  not  very  distantly  re- 

"Marien-faden"  (our  Lady's  winding-sheet),  which  appears  usually  at 
this  time  of  the  year,  and  consists  of  tufts  of  very  light,  white  material, 
like  spider-web,  floating  in  the  air.  The  usual  explanation  assigns  it  as 
the  product  of  some  insect;  but  the  writer  has  frequently  observed  it  in 
clear,  frosty  weather  forming  over  a  whole  field  of  newly  ploughed  soil, 
each  freshly  turned  furrow  being  covered  in  a  few  minutes  with  a  net- 
work of  extremely  fine,  tense  lines,  like  spider-lines,  visible  only  at  a 
certain  angle  with  the  rays  of  the  Sun,  and  no  insect  whatever,  or  any 
other  apparent  cause,  visible  either  in  earth  or  air.  Indeed,  it  seems  not 
improbable  that  various  kinds  of  connexions  accumulating  in  our  atmos- 
phere, under  various  conditions,  would  occasion  various  forms  of  precip- 
itation. 


145]      CONNEXIONS,   SUNSPOTS,   ZODICAL  LIGHT,   CORONA        261 

lated  to  these  stars  and  others  in  this  neighborhood.  And 
the  sunspot  maximum  would  be  due  to  the  aggregation  upon 
one  side  of  the  Sun  of  Jupiter's  primary  connexion  and  the 
Sun's  connexions  with  these  bodies.  For,  by  means  of  this 
aggregation  of  connexions  on  one  side  of  the  Sun,  the  solar 
vapors  would  be  enabled  to  ascend  to  comparatively  great 
elevations,  where  they  would  cool,  condense  and  fall 
to  form  the  spots,  in  exact  accordance  with  the  ob- 
servations and  deductions  of  all  modern  students  of  solar 
physics.  This  view  was  further  corroborated  when  it  was 
found  that  the  sunspot  minima  corresponded,  with  about 
equal  exactness,  to  the  times  during  which  the  planet  Jupiter 
lay  in  the  direction  from  the  Sun  opposite  to  that  which  it 
occupied  at  maximum  sunspots. 

And  the  fifth  and  last  principal  evidence  in  favor  of  the 
existence  of  material  planetary  connexions  is  that  we  actually 
see  them  with  t|he  naked  eye,  not  only  in  the  zodiacal  light, 
but  also  in  the  streamers  of  the  corona.  It  is  possible  that 
these  streamers  and  coronal  rays  are  not  material  connexions 
extending  outwards  from  the  Sun  to  neighboring  heavenly 
bodies;  but  they  certainly  present  the  exact  appearance 
which  such  material  connexions  would  make  on  every  occa- 
sion of  their  observation;  and  they  certainly  have  remained 
for  all  these  centuries  up  to  the  present  time  confessedly 
inexplicable  on  any  other  basis.  And  the  same  remark  also 
applies  to  the  sunspots,  the  zodiacal  light,  and  the  known 
variations  of  the  numbers  of  the  auroras  and  the  amounts  of 
atmospheric  pressure  and  precipitation. 

145.  Possible  Objections  to  the  New  Theory. — These  are 
strong,  apparently  incontrovertible  evidences  in  favor  of  the 
connective  theory.  What  are  the  evidences  against  it?  Will 
it  be  adduced  as  an  evidence  against  it  that  the  opposed 
force-theory  has  been  long  established  and  is  generally  ac- 
cepted? Perhaps  so;  but  against  such  evidence  argument  is 
useless. 

One  serious  objection,  and  apparently  the  only  one  which, 
so  far,  seems  assignable,  is  the  various  effects  upon  terrestrial 
heat,  light,  and  gravitation  which  the  deduced  various  quant- 


262  THE  CONNECTIVE  THEORY  [145 

ities  of  connective  substance  in  our  atmosphere  might  be 
supposed  to  predicate.  Thus  the  solar  connexion  is  probably 
as  dense  for  equal  volumes  as  any  other  which  falls  upon 
our  planet.  How  is  it,  then,  that  on  the  side  of  the  Earth 
upon  which  this  connexion  falls,  the  attraction  of  gravitation 
is  not  measurably  increased,  since  it  is  upon  the  density  of 
this  connective  atmosphere  that  the  attraction  is  held  chiefly 
to  depend  (Art.  97)  ?  In  other  words,  why  does  not  an  ob- 
ject weigh  more  during  the  day  than  it  does  during  the  night? 
Also  the  enormous  accumlations  and  drains  caused  by  the. 
predominant  sidereal  connexions — would  not  they  also  be 
accompanied  by  corresponding  variations  in  the  light,  heat, 
and  gravitation  manifested  upon  our  Earth,  since  it  is  upon 
the  quantity  of  the  connective  atmosphere  that  these  phe- 
nomena also  depend? 

Precisely  similar  questions  might  be  asked  of  the  present 
theory  also,  and  not  wholly  without  reason;  for  at  mid-day 
an  object  at  the  equator  is  not  only  about  8000  miles  nearer 
the  Sun  than  at  midnight,  but  the  opposing  centrifugal  force 
around  the  Sun  is  less  at  the  former  than  at  the  latter  by 
double  the  velocity  of  the  Earth's  axial  rotation;  the  attrac- 
tion of  the  latter  being  the  same  in  both  cases.  According 
to  the  law  of  gravitation,  a  pound  weight  should,  for  this 
reason,  be  about  1/3  of  a  grain  less  in  the  night  than  in  the 
day;  a  quantity  easily  within  our  ability  to  measure,  if  it 
existed.  And  a  similar  difference  would  be  caused  also  by 
the  Moon. 

According  to  the  new  theory,  it  may  be  stated  first  that, 
as  already  intimated,  the  connective  atmosphere  of  the  Earth 
is  made  up  of  innumerable  individual  connexions — connexions 
not  only  with  all  the  heavenly  bodies  visible  to  the  naked 
and  the  telescopic  eye,  but  also  with  countless  others  of  which 
the  eye  or  the  telescope  furnishes  no  evidence.  It  seems 
reasonable  to  suppose,  therefore,  that  the  density  of  an 
atmosphere  thus  constituted  would  not  be  affected  by  the 
addition  or  withdrawal  of  any  one  connexion,  even  that  with 
the  Sun,  to  any  sensible  degree.  Owing  to  the  eccentric 
position  of  the  Earth  with  regard  to  the  celestial  sphere,  there 


145]     CONNEXIONS,  SUNSPOTS,  ZODIACAL  LIGHT,  CORONA       263 

would  obviously  be  a  greater  number  of  connexions,  and 
therefore  a  possibly  denser  connective  atmosphere  on  that 
side  of  the  Earth  on  which  the  greater  portion  of  the  sidereal 
sphere  was  situated.  But  granting  that  the  connective  atmos- 
phere on  one  side  would  be  very  considerably  increased  ow- 
ing to  this  cause,  or  a  combination  of  similar  causes,  it  is  also 
true  that  the  supposed  change  of  density  would  take  place 
slowly,  and,  as  the  movements  of  the  free  or  reserve  con- 
nective substance  in  our  atmosphere  is  much  more  rapid,  is, 
in  fact,  literally  as  quick  as  lightning,  there  would  be  ample 
time  for  the  free  connective  substance  to  move  from  the  side 
of  greatest  pressure  to  the  opposite  side,  and  thus  continually 
maintain  a  very  approximate  uniformity  of  density  on  all 
sides  of  the  Earth.  Of  course  it  is  not  implied  here  that 
greater  elevation  of  the  connective  atmosphere  does  not 
occur  on  one  side  of  the  Earth  than  upon  the  other.  Such 
greater  elevation  of  the  connective  atmosphere  (accompanied 
no  doubt  by  greater  aerial  elevation)  would  be  owing  to  the 
location  of  principal  primary  connexions  on  that  side,  and 
would,  therefore,  of  itself,  tend  to  equalize  the  distribution 
of  connective  density  and  pressure. 

A  further  consideration  is  that  the  connective  atmosphere 
itself  does  not  revolve  with  the  Earth  in  its  diurnal  rotation. 
It  is,  indeed,  bodily  carried  along  with  the  Earth  around  the 
Sun;  but  it  is  absolutely  fixed  with  respect  to  its  axial  rota- 
tion. Therefore,  an  equable  distribution  of  pressure  or  den- 
sity, once  attained,  would  be  unaffected  by  an  accumulation 
or  drain  from  any  particular  direction. 

If  it  be  objected  that  the  density  (and  consequently  the 
functions)  of  the  connective  atmosphere,  as  a  whole,  changes, 
from  time  to  time,  with  the  variations  of  its  connective  sub- 
stance, it  may  be  replied  that  the  connective  atmosphere  of 
the  Earth  is  vastly  more  extensive  than  the  limits  either 
assigned  or  assignable  to  its  aerial  atmosphere.  Thus  the 
influx  or  the  efflux  of  the  enormous  volumes  of  connective 
substance  involved  by  the  variations  of  the  terrestrial  con- 
nexions has  a  correspondingly  inferior  effect  on  the  connect- 
ive density.  And  another  consideration  in  this  respect  is 


264  THE   CONNECTIVE   THEORY  [145 

that  an  increase  of  connective  pressure  and  consequent  den- 
sity above  the  normal,  even  if  it  did  exist  to  some  extent  in 
particular  localities,  would  quickly  be  relieved  by  precipita- 
tion of  the  surplus  connective  substance  into  some  form 
amenable  to  the  attraction  of  gravity,  and  therefore  no  longer 
contributing  to  the  sum  of  that  attraction.  The  converse  of 
this  is  equally  true.  A  deficiency  of  connective  pressure  and 
density  would  be  relieved  by  transformation  of  previously 
precipitated  forms  into  the  original  state.  So  that,  very  prob- 
ably, no  perceivable  variation  of  connective  substance  could 
exist  in  our  atmosphere  owing  to  this  cause. 

But  supposing  that  variations  in  the  density  and  functions 
of  the  connective  atmosphere  did  actually  exist;  that,  for 
instance,  the  absolute  effect  of  the  attraction  of  graviy  is 
really  variable  within  tolerably  wide  limits — it  might  be  in- 
quired in  turn  how  we  could  ever  become  conscious  of  such 
a  variation.  We  never  could  detect  it  by  means  of  the  bal- 
ance, for  obvious  reasons.  And  if  it  be  replied  that  the 
variation  might  still  be  detected  by  means  of  the  elastic 
strength  of  springs,  or  by  means  of  muscular  sense  and 
strength,  the  inquiry  at  once  occurs — Is  any  one  really  pre- 
pared to  demonstrate  that  the  elastic  strength  of  springs, 
and  even  the  energy  of  muscular  action,  and  the  resistance 
to  the  motion  of  a  pendulum,  would  not  be  affected  in  pre- 
cisely the  same  manner  as  the  attraction  of  gravity?  May 
not  every  molecule  of  the  spring,  and  of  the  muscle,  and  even 
of  the  perceiving  brain,  have  a  proper  connective  atmosphere 
of  its  own  (as  Helmholtz  and  others  have  suggested),  upon 
the  density  of  which  the  energy  of  their  action  depends,  and 
the  density  and  energy  of  which  are  in  turn  dependent  on  the 
density  and  energy  of  the  general  atmosphere? 


CHAPTER  X 


GENERAL  METEOROLOGICAL  PHENOMENA. 


At  altitudes  above  100  kilometres  there  is  supposed  to  be 
no  trace  of  anything  but  the  lighter  gases,  especially  hydro- 
gen (and  geocoronium,  if  it  exists). — C.  CHREE. 

It  can  be  argued  on  the  hydrodynamic  or  vortex  theory 
of  matter,  as  well  as  on  the  electrical  theory,  that  every  atom 
of  matter  has  a  universal,  though  nearly  infinitesimal,  prev- 
alence, and  extends  everywhere,  since  there  is  no  definite 
sharp  boundary  or  limiting  periphery  to  the  region  perturbed 
by  its  existence.— DR.  OLIVER  J.  LODGE. 

The  diurnal  oscillations  of  the  barometer  occur  alike  over 
the  open  sea  and  over  the  land  surfaces  of  the  globe.  The 
atmosphere  over  the  open  sea,  as  already  shown,  rests  on  the 
floor  or  surface  subject  to  a  diurnal  range  of  temperature 
so  small  as  to  render  that  temperature  practically  a  constant 
day  and  night.  This  consideration  leads  to  the  vital  and  all- 
important  conclusion  that  the  diurnal  oscillations  of  the  ba- 
rometer are  not  caused  by  the  heating  and  cooling  of  the 
Earth's  surface  by  solar  and  terrestial  radiation  and  by  the 
effects  which  follow  these  diurnal  changes  in  the  tempera- 
ture of  the  surface,  but  that  they  are  primarily  caused  by  the 
direct  and  immediate  heating  by  solar  radiation,  and  the  cool- 
ing by  nocturnal  radiation  to  the  cold  regions  of  space,  of 
the  molecules  of  the  air,  and  of  its  aqueous  vapor.  These 
changes  of  temperature  are  instantly  communicated  through 
the  whole  atmosphere  from  the  lowermost  stratum  resting 
on  the  earth's  surface  to  the  extreme  limit  of  the  atmosphere, 
which  the  flight  of  meteors  prove  to  be  not  less  than  500 
miles.— A.  BUCHAN.  (Meteorology,  Ency.  Brit.) 

(Let  the  reader  endeavor  to  harmonize  this  last  explana- 
tion, which  is  just  as  good  as  any  in  the  textbooks,  with  the 
actual  facts.  The  almost  exact  similarity  of  barometric  phe- 
nomena in  the  day  and  in  the  night,  even  in  the  polar  regions, 
where  the  nights  and  days  are  months  long,  seems  to  be  en- 
tirely lost  sight  of.) 

146.  Atmospheric  Extension. — It  has  been  noticed  (Arts. 
136-7)  that  the  solar  atmosphere  extends  to  very  great  dis- 
tances from  the  Sun's  surface,  and  that  this  atmospheric  ex- 


266  THE    CONNECTIVE   THEORY  [147 

tension  is  greater,  at  times,  in  certain  directions  than  in  oth- 
ers. From  analogy,  the  same  condition  of  things  in  the 
Earth's  atmosphere  as  a  whole  may  also  be  deduced.  It  was 
once  thought  that  the  height  of  the  atmosphere  was  5  miles; 
then,  later  on,  45  miles.  The  various  appearances  of  meteor- 
ites indicate  today  a  height  of  from  300  to  500  miles.  Indeed 
— "It  would  be  a  very  bold  proposition  to  assign  a  limit  to 
the  atmosphere  within  1000  miles."* 

There  is  reason  for  believing,  however,  that  atmospheric 
ail1  would  not  increase  in  tenuity  and  height  to  an  indefinite 
distance,  and  neither  would  the  connective  atmosphere,  ex- 
cepting the  individual  connexions.  The  connective  atmos- 
pheres of  smaller  bodies  are  observed  to  be  of  comparatively 
minute  extension;  and  there  appears  to  be  no  reason  why  the 
Earth  should  be  an  exception  to  this  rule. 

147.  Aerial  Tides  and  Barometric  Pressure. — For  the 
reasons  already  stated  (Arts,  140-1),  the  two  primary  connex- 
ions upon  the  Earth,  or  those  connecting  it  with  the  Sun  and 
Moon,  have  a  profound  influence  upon  the  atmosphere  of  our 
globe;  piling  it  up  at  certain  places  and  times,  in  waves  called 
tides,  while  at  other  times  they  absorb  its  rarer  gases  out- 
wards to  greater  distances  from  the  planet's  surface.  Owing 
to  the  diurnal  rotation  of  the  Earth,  all  portions  of  its  sur- 
face are  successfully  swept  over  from  east  to  west  by  these 
connexions;  which,  being  material,  would  tend,  in  a  degree,  to 
drag  the  floating  atmospheric  particles  through  which  they 
move  along  with  them,  and  so  give  rise  to  the  aerial  tides. 
The  existence  of  these  aerial  tides  would  be  indicated  by  the 
barometer,  an  instrument  for  measuring  the  pressure,  and 
therefore,  supposedly,  the  quantity  or  mass  of  air,  at  invar- 
iable distances,  vertically  above  it;  and  that  they  are  indica- 
ted by  it,  is  now  generally  accepted. 

What  is  remarkable  about  these  aerial  tides,  however,  is 
that  the  solar  tide  is  much  greater  than  the  lunar  tide,  and 
this  apparently  not  because  of  the  Sun's  heat  or  any  other 
solar  influence,  but  due  solely  to  the  Sun  as  a  tide-producer. 
A  few  quotations  on  this  subject  from  the  best  authorities, 

*I'roC.  A.  R.  Russel,  Smith.  Miscel.  Coll.,  No.  1072. 


147]  GENERAL    METEOROLOGICAL    PHENOMENA  267 

is  well  worthy  of  perusal,  if  only  as  illustrating  their  non- 
plussed predicament  regarding  this  matter: 

"For  the  British  Isles  the  barometric  pressure  has  two 
maxima  and  two  minima  each  day — the  first  minimum  early 
in  the  morning,  the  second  in  the  afternoon,  the  first  max- 
imum in  the  forenoon  and  the  second  about  10  o'clock  in  the 
evening.  In  the  tropics  the  amplitude  of  the  oscillation 
amounts  to  about  one-tenth  inch;  in  the  British  Isles  and 
all  similar  latitudes,  this  gradually  decreases  to  about  3/100 
inch."* 

"Lunar  air-tides  can,  according  to  M.  Bouquet  de  la  Gyre, 
be  distinctly  traced  in  the  records  of  barometric  pressure  col- 
lected at  insular  stations  .  .  .  where  there  are  no  power- 
ful disturbances  to  obscure  them  .  .  .  The  maximum 
amplitude  at  Brest  is  about  1/4  inch  of  water  or  1/50  inch  of 
mercury,  which  though  small,  is  well  within  the  limits  of 
accurate  measurement."! 

"If  we  examine  the  facts  as  recorded  by  the  barometer,  we 
find  .  .  .  the  semi-diurnal  oscillation  extremely  regular 
in  amplitude  for  places  in  the  same  latitude  and  in  phase  for 
places  in  the  same  longitude.  The  first  thing  that  suggests 
itself  is  that  this  is  a  tide  caused  by  the  Sun's  attraction; 
but  the  corresponding  lunar  tide  ought  to  be  more  marked, 
whereas,  actually,  the  lunar  tide  is  almost  absent  . 
Lord  Kelvin  was  the  first  to  suggest  that  the  semi-diurnal  tide 
was  a  temperature  effect.  The  daily  variation  of  tempera- 
ture is  not  harmonic,  and  when  it  is  analyzed  there  is  a  defin- 
ite component  with  a  half  day  period.  The  objection  to 
attributing  the  semi-diurnal  pressure  variation  to  this  is  that 
the  latter  is  extremely  regular,  while  the  temperature  varia- 
tion changes  considerably  with  the  locality. "$ 

"After  having  given  the  mean  range  for  each  month  and 
for  the  year,  he§  has  calculated  the  amplitudes  and  phases 
of  the  first  four  simple  harmonic  oscillations  into  which  the 
complex  oscillation  of  the  barometric  diurnal  range  may  be 
resolved,  and  which  may  be  considered  as  the  resultant  of 
the  superposition  of  two  waves  of  different  origin  and  char- 
acter. One  of  these,  which  the  author  terms  the  thermic 
wave,  is  of  a  more  or  less  complicated  form  in  appearance, 
and  is  easily  explained  as  being  produced  by  the  diurnal 

*Mr.   R.    H.    Curtis,    Nature,    61,    119. 

t  Nature,   51,   516. 

JProf.    Horace    Lamb,    British    Association,    1908. 

§M.  A.  Angot,  of  the  French  Meteorological  Office,  who  has  publish- 
ed in  the  Annales  of  that  Office  a  very  careful  discussion  of  the  diurnal 
range  of  the  barometer,  based  upon  the  best  available  data  for  all  parts 
of  the  globe. 


268  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [147 

variation  of  temperature,  and  by  the  differences  that  these 
variations  present  between  neighboring  stations.  The  other, 
the  principal  semi-diurnal  wave,  for  which  he  has  given  the 
numerical  law,  presents  a  much  more  simple  form,  and  is 
not  at  all  affected  by  local  conditions.  It  is  possibly  pro- 
duced by  the  calorific  action  of  the  Sun  upon  the  upper  strata 
of  the  atmosphere;  but,  as  the  author  states,  this  is  still  only 
an  hypothesis,  and  the  theory  of  this  part  of  the  phenomenon 
remains  to  be  established."*, 

"Somehow  or  other  this  protuberance  remains  fixed  with 
regard  to  the  sun,  at  which  it  indirectly  points,  while  the 
solid  earth  revolves  beneath  it.  Whatever  the  cause  of  this 
effect,  obviously  cosmical,  and  attributed  to  the  sun,  .  .  . 
it  is  now  accepted  as  one  of  the  fundamental  facts  of  meteor- 
ology.''! 

From  these  extracts  it  will  be  noticed  that  the  solar  tide 
is  just  about  as  much  larger  than  the  lunar  tide  as,  according 
to  the  present  theory,  the  lunar  tide  should  be  larger  than 
the  solar  tide.  Of  course  this  fact  remains  so  far  without 
the  slightest  tenable  explanation;  but  with  the  new  theory, 
it  fits  perfectly  hand-and-glove. 

There  are  over  the  greater  portion  of  the  Earth's  surface, 
two  maxima  and  two  minima  of  air-pressure  every  24  hours. 
The  two  daily  maxima  are  in  the  morning  and  in  the  evening, 
about  from  8  to  10  A.  M.,  and  from  8  to  11  P.  M.,  and  the  two 
daily  minima  are  intermediate,  or  at  about  2  to  4  A.  M.  and 
1  to  4  P.  M.  The  observations  made  by  the  Challenger  Ex- 
pedition in  the  Antarctic  Ocean,  and  those  made  by  the  Nor- 
wegian Expedition  in  the  North  Atlantic,  show  only  one  max- 
imum and  one  minimum  in  the  24  hours,  the  maximum  occur- 
ring in  the  day  and  the  minimum  during  the  night.  This  is 
another  fact  which  is  wholly  inexplicable  by  the  current  the- 
ory, but  is  exactly  what  the  new  theory  requires. 

According  to  the  connective  theory,  the  morning  and  the 
evening  maxima  would  correspond  to  the  passage  of  the  east 
and  the  west  edges  of  the  solar  connexion,  or  bond,  over  the 
Earth's  surface;  the  rays  or  filaments  of  the  bond,  being  at- 
tached to  the  atmospheric  particles  as  well  as  to  the  land  and 
ocean  particles,  would  have  a  tendency,  as  they  were  success- 

*Nature,   41,   449. 

tDr.  W.  N.  Shaw,  Address  British  Association.  Dublin;  Nature,  78. 
429. 


148]  GENERAL    METEOROLOGICAL    PHENOMENA  269 

ively  transferred  from  one  set  of  particles  to  another,  to  pile 
them  up  somewhat  upon  one  another  at  those  portions  of  the 
Earth's  surface  where  the  strain  of  the  connective  filaments 
operated  at  right  angles  to  terrestrial  gravity,  and  where  the 
only  resistance,  therefore,  to  such  piling  up  would  be  the 
mutual  friction  of  the  atmospheric  particles.  The  two  minima, 
being  about  midway  between  the  maxima,  would  evidently 
correspond  to  the  center  of  the  solar  connexion,  where  the 
connective  strain  would  be  directly  opposed  by  gravity,  and 
where  the  rarer  vapors  ascend,  and  to  the  side  of  the  Earth 
diametrically  opposite  to  the  center  of  the  solar  connexion, 
upon  which  no  connective  strain  whatever  is  exerted.  The 
single  maximum  of  the  higher  latitudes,  with  respect  both  to 
the  Sun  and  to  the  Moon,  at  about  the  middle  of  the  respect- 
ive day  of  each,  just  as  obviously  corresponds  to  the  north 
and  the  south  edges  of  their  respective  connexions,  the  cen- 
tral or  denser  portions  of  which  pass  but  once  daily  over  any 
place,  and  which  would  cause  a  slight  movement  of  the  air 
particles  in  latitude,  as  the  east  and  the  west  edges  did  in 
longitude;  and  the  single  minimum  would  likewise  correspond 
to  the  opposite  side  of  the  Earth  upon  which  were  no  solar 
or  lunar  connexion.  And  the  solar  tide  is  the  greater  for  the 
simple  reason  that  the  strain  on  the  Earth's  solar  connexion 
is  greater  than  on  the  Earth's  lunar  connexion  in  the  exact 
ratio  observed,  or  about  as  5  to  2. 

Here  the  new  theory  and  the  phenomena  of  Nature  fit  to- 
gether so  perfectly  that  it  were  superfluous  to  dwell  longer 
upon  the  subject.  It  may  be  noticed,  however,  that,  in  ascend- 
ing from  middle  to  higher  latitudes,  the  phase,  or  time  of 
maximum  or  minimum  barometric  pressure  would  not  be  the 
same  at  all  places  along  any  meridian,  as  it  should  be  by  the 
present  theory,  but  would  lag  and  advance  at  northern  and 
southern  stations  as  compared  with  middle  localities,  in 
accordance  with  the  circular  contour  of  the  edges  of  the  con- 
nexions. This  too  appears  to  be  fully  borne  out  by  actual 
observation. 

148.  Cloud  Zones. — In  further  corroboration  of  the  gen- 
eral theory,  it  may  be  noticed  that  the  barometric  pressure 


270  THE  CONNECTIVE  THEORY  [149 

is  somewhat  greater  within  the  tropics,  and  that  the  clouds 
are  distributed  in  zones  parallel  to  the  Equator.  M.  L.  Teis- 
serence  de  Bort  has  shown,  by  charts  based  on  observations 
made  at  500  stations,  and  on  an  immense  number  of  observa- 
tions collated  by  the  Meteorological  Office  in  Paris, 

"(1)  that  there  is  a  marked  tendency  in  all  months  towards  a 
distribution  of  cloud  in  zones  parallel  to  the  equator;  (2) 
when  disturbing  influences  are  eliminated,  it  is  seen  that 
there  is  a  maximum  amount  of  cloud  near  the  equator;  that 
there  are  two  belts  of  slight  nebulosity  from  15°  to  35°  of 
north  and  south  latitude,  and  two  zones  of  greater  cloudiness 
between  latitudes  45°  and  60°,  and  that  beyond  this  (so  far 
as  can  be  judged  from  observations  in  the  northern  hemis- 
phere) the  sky  appears  to  become  clear  towards  the  Poles; 
(3)  these  zones  have  a  tendency  to  follow  the  march  of  the 
sun's  decimation;  they  are  transferred  towards  the  north  in 
spring  and  towards  the  south  in  summer.* 

It  would  also  be  inferred  from  the  new  theory  that  the 
upper  currents  of  the  equatorial  belt  would  tend  continually 
to  follow  the  movement  of  the  primary  and  planetary  con- 
nexions over  the  Earth's  surface — that  is,  from  east  to  west; 
or,  in  other  words,  tend  to  remain  stationary  among  the  com- 
paratively fixed  connexions  while  the  Earth  revolves  from 
west  to  east  beneath  them;  and  this,  according  to  the  best 
authorities,  is  now  admitted  to  be  the  fact.  In  this  connection, 
E.  Douglas  Archibald,  of  the  Krakatao  Committee,  says: 

"Theory  is  naturally,  perhaps,  though  still  somewhat  sing- 
ularly, silent  as  to  what  is  supposed  to  be  the  motion  of  the 
air  in  the  upper  regions  of  the  belt  bunded  by  15°  on  either 
side  of  the  equator.  Ferel's  equations  are' not  very  satisfac- 
tory for  this  place.  .  .  .  That  the  wind  there,  however, 
still  maintains  its  westward  component  under  the  normal 
conditions  which  accompany  the  north  and  south  trades  is 
plain  both  from  Mr.  Abercomby's  and  other  observations.! 

149.  Sky-Glows. — An  extraordinary  terrestrial  phenom- 
enon seems  to  have  placed  this  westerly  equatorial  current 
beyond  dispute.  On  the  26th  day  of  August,  1883,  occurred  a 
frightful  eruption  of  the  volcano  Krakatao,  on  the  island  of 
Java,  in  which  50,000  people  lost  their  lives.  Enormous  vol- 

*Nature,  36,  pp.  15-16. 

tNatur*,  36,  153. 


149]  GENERAL     METEOROLOGICAL     PHENOMENA  271 

umes  of  smoke,  dust,  and  ashes  were  ejected  upwards  into 
the  air.  for  a  distance  of  many  miles.  Almost  immediately 
afterwards  appeared  in  the  surrounding  region  the  peculiar 
sunset  glows  which  afterwards  became  so  prominent  nearly 
all  over  the  world.  Here  is  the  sequence  of  the  first  appear- 
ance of  this  phenomenon  in  different  parts  of  the  world,  as 
given  by  Mr.  Ralph  Abercromby: 

"On  August  26,  the  day  of  the  eruption,  ashes,  lofty  haze, 
or  red  twilights,  are  reported  south  of  the  equator,  nearly 
20°  of  longitude  west  of  Java,  from  one  station  in  Sumatra, 
just  north  of  the  line,  and  from  near  Formosa. 

"Next  day,  the  27th,  similar  phenomena  were  reported 
from  many  stations  in  the  Indian  Ocean,  south  of  the  equator, 
as  far  west  as  Mauritius  and  the  Seychelles,  while  north  of 
the  line  strange  appearances  were  reported  for  the  first  time 
in  Borneo  and  Ceylon. 

"On  the  28th,  the  haze  and  abnormal  glows  had  extended 
to  Natal  on  one  side  and  Japan  on  the  other. 

"No  important  extension  of  the  area  is  reported  on  August 
29;  but  by  the  30th  unusual  coloration  of  the  sky  is  reported 
from  various  parts  of  the  South  Atlantic  and  Guiana,  and, 
what  is  especially  noticeable,  from  about  the  Cape  Verde 
islands,  north  of  the  equator. 

"On  the  31st,  another  station  in  Brazil,  and  also  a  West 
Indian  island,  report  a  strange  look  about  the  sun  or  sky; 
while  on  September  1  the  same  was  noted  at  Guayaquil,  on 
the  coast  of  South  America;  and  in  a  quite  unexpected  local- 
ity, far  away  from  there — New  Ireland. 

"September  2  was  characterized  by  an  outburst  of  colored 
suns  all  over  the  northern  provinces  of  South  America;  while 
between  the  3rd  and  fourth  of  the  same  month  the  glows  ex- 
tended across  the  Pacific,  both  north  and  south  as  far  as  the 
Society  and  Gilbert  Islands,  and  were  reported  from  two  sta- 
tions in  New  Britain. 

"By  September  5  the  Sandwich  Islands  were  reached  while 
the  outburst  of  glows  in  Southern  India  did  not  commence  till 
about  the  6th  to  8th  of  the  same  month. 

"The  northward  extension  of  the  dust  all  this  time  was 
very  small  and  not  widespread.  Isolated  phenomena  are  re- 
ported from  Formosa  on  August  26,  and  from  Japan  on  the 
28th,  but  I  am  unable  to  say  whether  the  glows  which  ap- 
peared in  the  Sandwich  Islands  on  September  5,  had  come 
via  Japan,  or  across  South  America. 

"Thus  the  general  system  of  the  dust-flow  appears  to  have 
been  very  simple.  The  great  dust-stream  was  carried  for  the 
first  twenty-four  hours  by  the  normal  easterly  upper  currents 
over  the  south-east  trade,  at  the  extraordinary  rate  of  about 
120  miles  an  hour,  but  hardly  extended  north  of  the  line. 
Three  days  after  the  eruption  we  find  the  products  of  Krak- 


272  THE  CONNECTIVE  THEORY  [149 


atao  in  Guinana,  the  South  Atlantic  and  also  north  of  the 
line  in  the  Cape  Verde  Islands.  Just  to  the  south  of  the  lat- 
ter we  know  that  the  south-east  trade  with  its  attendant  upper 
currents,  crosses  the  equator.  Then  all  the  north  of  South 
America  was  invaded;  and  six  or  seven  days  after 
the  first  outburst,  the  Pacific  Islands — south  of  or  on  the 
line — were  also  overshadowed. 

"In  fact  we  may  say,  that  the  great  streams  of  Krakatao 
dust  was  carried  nearly  round  the  world  by  the  usual  upper 
winds  of  the  south-east  trade,  in  which  the  dust  was  first 
ejected,  at  a  rate  of  about  120  miles  an  hour,  and  that  the  dust 
spread  very  slowly  either  north  or  south  of  the  main  cur- 
rent."* 

The  most  serious  objection  that  has  been  offered  against 
this  explanation  of  the  sky-glows  of  1883-4,  is  the  enormous 
velocity  with  which  the  volcanic  ejecta  must  have  been  car- 
ried round  the  world;  a  greater  velocity,  in  fact,  than  had 
ever  before  been  observed  in  atmospheric  currents.  A  partial 
explanation  of  this  was  that  the  velocity  of  atmospheric  cur 
rents  near  the  Equator  was  shown  by  observation  to  increase 
with  the  elevation.  But  of  this  fact  of  greater  aerial  velocity 
at  greater  elevations  there  seems  to  have  been  no  explanation 
offered,  as  Mr.  Archibald  in  the  foregoing  quotation  has  ob- 
served. By  the  new  theory,  however,  the  explanation  is  ob- 
vious at  a  glance.  The  rarer  and  more  volatile  aerial  fluids 
which  ascend  to  the  greater  elevation  are  more  easily  de- 
tained by  the  nearly  stationary  connexions  of  the  Earth.  As 
our  planet  performs  its  diurnal  rotation,  the  connexions  fall- 
ing upon  it  remain  absolutely  fixed  so  far  as  that  rotation  is 
concerned.  The  lower  and  grosser  strata  of  air  freely  permit 
the  passage  through  them  of  this  connective  substance,  but 
the  higher  and  higher  strata,  becoming  more  and  more  ten 
uous  and  of  less  and  less  momentum,  would  more  easily  suffer 
detention  by  the  connective  substance,  until,  at  very  great 
elevations,  the  aerial  tenuity  would  almost  approximate  that 
of  the  connective  substance  itself,  and  so  suffer  complete  de- 
tention. Thus  while  the  Earth  revolved  from  west  to  east  in 
every  24  hours,  the  upper  aerial  regions  remaining  nearly  or 
wholly  stationary  (but  gradually  partaking  more  and  more 

*Nature,  36,  pp.  86-7. 


149]  GENERAL    METEOROLOGICAL    PHENOMENA  273 

of  the  Earth's  rotation  as  the  Earth's  surface  is  approached) 
would  seem  to  an  observer  near  the  Equator  to  be  moving 
with  great  velocity  from  east  to  west.  And;,  therefore, 
when  the  equally  tenuous  and  volatile  smoke  and  dust  of 
Krakatao  were  ejected  into  these  slowly  moving  or  nearly 
stationary  upper  regions  of  the  connective  atmosphere,  they 
would  be  partially  retained  therein,  and  the  Earth's  surface 
would  revolve  under  them  towards  the  east  until,  in  the 
course  of  a  few  days,  it  had  gained  an  entire  revolution  upon 
the  ejected  substance.  Thus  the  extremely  rapid  apparent 
westward  movement  of  the  ejecta  appears  to  be  fully  account- 
ed for,  while  the  north  and  south  movement  of  the  same 
would  just  as  obviously  require  a  much  longer  period  because 
it  would  be  accomplished  only  by  diffusion  and  occasional 
local  currents. 

Here,  then,  are  additional  important  phenomena  which 
are  confessedly  wholly  inexplicable  by  the  current  theory, 
but  which  are  explained  perfectly  by  the  new  theory.  The 
same  explanation  may  also  apply  to  some  epidemic  diseases 
such  as  influenza,  cholera,  the  black  plague,  etc.,  (the  ma- 
terial cause  of  which  may  possibly  be,  partly,  the  accumla- 
tion  in  our  atmosphere  of  some  peculiar  substance  from  inter- 
planetary spaces),  which  occasionally  appear  to  be  trans- 
mitted over  the  Earth's  surface  almost  precisely  in  a  similar 
manner. 


CHAPTER  XI 


THE  OCEAN   TIDES 


The  waves  which  forever  disturb  the  surface  of  the  sea 
demand  much  study.  The  greater  of  these,  and  the  most  reg- 
ular, is  the  tidal  wave.  On  this  many  powerful  intellects 
have  been  brought  to  bear,  but  it  still  presents  many  un- 
solved anomalies.  .  .  . 

In  some  places  there  is  but  one  appointed  tide  in  the  day: 
in  others  this  phenomenon  only  occurs  at  particular  periods 
of  each  lunation,  while  in  the  majority  of  cases  it  is  the 
movements  of  each  alternate  tide  only  that  appear  to  have 
much  to  do  with  one  another. 

— CAPTAIN  W.  J.  L.  WHARTON. 

The  great  danger  which  besets  all  men  of  large  speculative 
faculty  is  the  temptation  to  deal  with  the  accepted  facts  in 
natural  science  as  if  they  were  not  only  correct  but  exhaust- 
ive; as  if  they  might  be  dealt  with  deductively,  in  the  same 
way  as  propositions  -in  Euclid  may  be  dealt  with.  In  reality 
every  such  statement,  however  true  it  may  be,  is  true  only 
relatively  to  the  means  of  observation  and  the  point  of  view 
of  those  who  have  examined  it.  So  far  it  may  be  depended 
upon.  But  whether  it  will  bear  every  speculative  conclusion 
that  may  be  logically  deduced  from  it,  is  quite  another  ques- 
tion.—PROF.  HUXLEY. 

The  human  intellect,  in  those  things  which  have  once 
pleased  it,  (either  because  these  have  been  received  and  be- 
lieved, or  because  they  delight)  draws  also  all  other  things  to 
vote  with  and  consent  to  these — and  though  the  weight  and 
multitude  of  contrary  instances  be  the  greater,  yet  either  it 
does  not  observe  them,  or  despises  them,  or  draws  distinc- 
tions, and  so  removes  and  rejects  them — not  without  great 
and  pernicious  prejudice — in  order  that  the  authority  of  those 
previous  conclusions  may  remain  unshaken. — LORD  BACON. 

150.  Comparison  of  the  Two  Theories. — The  same  general 
explanation  applies  to  the  ocean  as  to  the  aerial  tides.  The 
two  tidal  waves  would  correspond  to,  and,  on  the  open  ocean, 
would  nearly  always  accompany,  the  east  and  the  west  edges 
of  the  lunar  or  the  terrestrial  primary  connexion.  And  the 
two  tidal  troughs  or  depressions  would  correspond  to,  and 


150]  THE    OCEAN    TIDES  275 

generally  accompany,  the  central  meridian  of  the  connexion 
(where  the  tide-raising  force  was  directly  opposed  by  grav- 
ity) and  the  opposite  meridian  upon  which  the  connexion  did 
not  act.  Owing  to  the  far  greater  density  of  the  water,  and 
the  ease  and  rapidity  of  its  wave  transmission,  these  tidal 
waves  and  depressions  would  quickly  assert  themselves  over 
the  entire  ocean  surface  contiguous  to  each  connexion  border, 
and  so  largely  overwhelm  or  mask  the  minor  single  wave 
which,  but  for  this  circumstance,  would  alone  take  place  in 
the  higher  latitudes,  as  in  the  case  of  the  aerial  tide. 

According  to  the  popular  theory  of  the  tides,  the  tidal 
wave  is  raised  by  the  attraction  of  the  Sun  or  the  Moon  upon 
the  central  meridian  directly  beneath  its  orb,  where  it  is 
directly  opposed  by  the  twelve  million  fold  more  powerful 
terrestrial  gravity  (Art.  44) ;  whereas,  by  the  new  theory,  the 
tidal  wave  is  raised  at  the  east  and  the  west  borders  of  the 
Earth  as  viewed  from  the  tide-producer,  and  where  the  tide- 
raising  force  is  at  right  angles  to,  and  therefore  wholly  un- 
opposed by  the  Earth's  attraction.  According  to  the  popular 
theory,  tidal  waves  and  depressions  are  nearly  always  delayed 
for  relatively  great  periods  after  their  causes;  the  "establish- 
ment" or  "age  of  the  tide,"  that  is,  the  interval  of  time  be- 
tween the  transit  over  a  meridian  of  the  body  which  origi- 
nates a  tide  and  the  appearance  of  the  tide  itself  at  that  mer- 
idian, being  supposed  to  vary  at  different  places  from  a 
few  hours  to  several  days.  While,  strangely  enough,  the 
"tidal  interval,"  or  difference  between  the  time  of  high  water 
and  that  of  the  transit  of  the  tide-producer  immediately  pre- 
ceding the  tide,  is  known  rarely  to  exceed  seven  hours;  the 
average  "tidal  interval"  being  about  six  hours.  Thus  the 
"age"  of  the  tide  on  the  east  coast  of  the  United  States  is 
held  to  be  about  a  day,  and  in  Cumberland  Sound,  British 
America,  nearly  two  days;  while  the  new  theory  would  make 
the  age  of  the  tide  at  both  places  about  six  hours;  correspond- 
ing with  the  actual  observed  angle  of  separation  of  the  tidal 
wave  from  its  producer.  As  for  the  ports  upon  a  western 
continental  coast,  such  as  London,  they  would  by  the  new 
theory  have  no  proper  tide  at  all,  but  simply  a  branch  or 


276  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [151 

secondary  wave  spreading  outwards  from  the  proper  tidal 
wave  in  accordance  with  well-known  hydro-static  laws. 

151.  The  Greater  Tidal  Wave  Due  to  the  Sun  and  the 
Lesser  to  tine  Moon. — Now  if  the  new  theory  be  the  correct 
one,  the  solar  tide  ought  to  be  nearly  two  and  a  half  times 
as  great  as  the  lunar  tide  because  the  strain  of  the  solar 
connexion  upon  the  Earth  is  about  that  much  greater  than 
the  strain  of  the  lunar  connexion.  It  has  already  been  noticed 
that  this  is  actually  the  case  with  respect  to  the  aerial  tide; 
which  very  obviously  is  in  direct  opposition  to  the  current 
theory  and  in  favor  of  this  view.  In  any  event,  this  is  just 
what  the  new  theory  teaches,  not  only  with  respect  to  the 
aerial  tides,  but  also  with  respect  to  the  oceanic  tides.  The 
greater  tidal  wave  would  be  owing  to  the  Sun,  and  the  lesser 
to  the  Moon.  The  terms  of  the  ratio  of  the  two  tides  would 
be  almost  precisely  the  same  (though  very  differently  de- 
rived) in  the  one  theory  as  in  the  other,  but  the  new  theory 
takes  the  reciprocal  of  the  old  for  the  new  ratio.  The  pull 
of  the  Earth's  connexion  with  the  Sun  is  such  as  to  deflect 
the  Earth  from  a  tangent  to  its  orbit  about  0.01  ft.  in  one 
second  of  time.  The  pull  of  the  Moon's  connexion  with  the 
Earth  is  such  as  to  deflect  the  Moon  from  a  tangent  to  its 
orbit  about  0.00447  ft.  in  one  second.  These  pulls  by  the  new 
theory  represent  exactly  the  tide-raising  values  of  the  con- 
nected bodies  respectively  upon  the  Earth,  and,  therefore,  the 
solar  tide-raising  power  is  more  than  twice  as  great  as  the 
lunar  tide-raising  power,  or  the  two  have  just  about  the  same 
ratio  as  the  actual  tides. 

Now  the  angular  difference  between  the  solar  and  the 
lunar  tide  at  no  time  exceeds  six  hours,  according  to  either 
theory.  But,  what  is  of  the  utmost  importance  in  this  con- 
nection, it  will  also  be  observed  that  the  angular  difference 
of  the  effective  directions  in  which  the  tide-raising  powers  of 
the  two  theories  act,  is  also  just  six  hours.  From  which  it 
clearly  follows  that  a  change  from  the  adoption  of  the  central 
meridian  of  the  Earth's  hemisphere  next  to  the  tide-producer 
to  the  adoption  of  the  east  and  west  edges  of  that  hemisphere 
as  the  lines  of  application  of  the  tide-raising  power — must 


152]  THE    OCEAN    TIDES  277 

necessarily  involve  the  adoption  of  the  supposed  lunar  tide 
as  being  due  to  the  Sun,  and  of  the  supposed  solar  tide 
as  being  due  to  the  Moon.  In  other  words,  if  the  lunar  and 
the  solar  tides  are  on  the  average  six  hours  apart,  and  if  an 
error  of  just  six  hours  is  shown  to  be  involved  by  the  present 
theory  in  the  origin  of  each  tide,  a  correction  of  the  error 
would  put  the  lunar  tide  exactly  in  the  place  of  the  solar 
tide,  and  vice  versa. 

But  the  new  theory  does  involve  a  difference  of  just  six 
hours  in  the  place  of  origin  of  each  tide,  as  indicated  by  the 
present  theory;  and,  therefore,  it  follows  that  the  adoption 
of  the  former  instead  of  the  latter  theory  involves  the  sub- 
stitution or  transposition  of  each  tide  in  the  one  theory  as 
an  effect  of  the  producer  of  the  other  tide  in  the  other  theory. 

152.  Possible  Objections. — No  doubt  it  will  be  at  once 
objected  to  this  view  that  the  tide  now  ascribed  to  the  Moon 
can  not  be  assigned  to  the  Sun  for  the  reason  that  the  two 
bodies  do  not  travel  at  the  same  angular  rate  around  the 
Earth,  and,  therefore,  the  Sun  would  not  keep  pace  with  the 
tide,  as  it  ought  to  do  if  the  new  theory  were  correct.  Now 
it  is  a  fact  that  the  tidal  wave  approximately  keeps  pace  with, 
the  Moon.  The  latter  body  comes  to  the  meridian  of  any 
place  about  49  minutes  on  the  average  later  on  any  particular 
day  than  on  the  preceding  day,  and  the  tide  also  appears  at 
any  particular  place  in  approximate  parallelism  with  the 
Moon's  meridian  passage  at  that  place;  while,  of  course,  the 
Sun  comes  to  the  meridian  of  any  place  once  in  every  24 
hours,  and,  therefore,  out  of  all  conformity  to  the  appearance 
of  the  tides. 

In  reply  to  this  apparently  very  serious  objection,  we  may 
first  note  that  there  is  only  one  tidal  wave  upon  a  hemisphere 
of  the  Earth  at  one  time  and  but  one  also  upon  the  opposite 
hemisphere  at  that  time.  In  other  words,  any  place  upon  the 
Earth  has  no  more  than  two  high  tides  and  two  low  tides  in 
any  24  hours;  and  this  although,  according  to  either  theory, 
there  are  two  tide-producers  each  of  which  would  cause  two 
nigh  tides  and  two  low  tides  in  about  that  time.  It  is  to  be 
borne  in  mind  that  a  tidal  wave  due  to  any  tide  producer 


278  THE  CONNECTIVE  THEORY  [152 

would  cover  nearly  a  whole  oceanic  hemisphere  of  the  tide- 
bearer  at  once.  We  know  this  from  the  fact  that  at  any  par- 
ticular place  it  requires  about  five  Jiours  for  any  tide  to  flow 
and  about  six  hours  for  it  to  ebb,.  Now  since  there  are  two 
tide-producers  each  of  which  alone  would  cause  two  tidal 
waves,  it  follows  that  the  utmost  angular  distance  between 
the  crest  of  one  wave  and  that  of  some  neighboring  wave 
would  not  exceed  90°;  and  even  at  this  maximum  distance, 
the  one  would  lap  considerably  over  the  other.  In  fact,  it 
appears  that,  even  at  this  maximum  distance,  the  crest  of 
each  wave  unites  with  that  of  the  other  at  some  intermediate 
point  to  form  one  compound  tidal  wave  with  a  single  apex 
at  that  point;  and  thus  it  happens  that,  with  the  two  tide- 
producers,  there  are  but  two  tidal  waves.  In  the  more  ele- 
gant words  of  Sir  John  Herschel — 

•"The  actual  tide-day,  then,  or  the  interval  of  the  occur- 
rence of  two  successive  maxima  of  their  superposed  waves, 
will  vary  as  the  separate  waves  will  approach  to  or  recede 
from  coincidence;  because  when  the  vertices  of  the  two 
waves  do  not  coincide,  their  joint  height  has  its  maximum 
at  a  point  intermediate  between  them." 

Also  Prof.  Tait — 

"The  joint  effect  of  the  sun  and  moon  is  practically  the 
resultant  of  the  effects  which  they  would  separately  pro- 
duce/' * 

Here,  then,  is  the  explanation  of  the  nonconformity  of  the 
tidal  wave  with  the  Sun's  apparent  motion.  The  wave  does 
not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  conform  generally  either  to  that  of 
the  Sun's  apparent  motion  or  to  that  of  the  Moon: 
it  nearly  always  conforms  only  to  the  apparent  motion 
of  a  variable  point  either  between  the  two  bodies  or  between 
their  tides,.  Let  us  suppose  for  illustration  that  the  Sun  and 
the  Moon  are  together;  in  which  case  the  tidal  wave  obvious- 
ly conforms  to  the  position  of  both  bodies.  Suppose  now 
that  the  Moon  moves  some  30°  in  advance  of  the  Sun;  then 
the  apex  of  the  tide  would  also  move  in  advance  of  the  Sun 
conformably  to  a  point  between  the  two  bodies.  This  would 

*Ency.  Brit.,  9th  ed.,   15,   687. 


152]  THE    OCEAN    TIDES  279 

obviously  cause  a  lagging  of  the  tide  behind  the  Sun 
at  any  particular  place  upon  the  Earth.  If  the  Moon  moves 
90°  in  advance  of  the  Sun,  then  the  apex  of  the  tide  also 
moves  still  farther  in  advance  of  the  Sun,  and  there  would 
be  still  further  lagging  of  the  tide  behind  that  body. 
As  the  Moon  moved  away  from  the  Sun,  the  height 
of  the  tidal  wave  continually  diminished;  so  that  when 
the  former  was  90°  in  advance  of  the  latter,  the 
tide,  as  such,  would  be  at  its  minimum  hieght.  After  the 
Moon's  distance  from  the  Sun  exceeded  90°,  the  former  apex, 
still  advancing,  would  continue  to  sink  still  lower,  and  a  new 
apex  would  form  still  farther  in  advance  in  conjunction  with 
the  opposite  solar  tide.  This  new  apex  would  increase  in 
height  and  advance  rapidly  with  the  Moon  at  first,  but  more 
slowly  as  the  Moon's  distance  from  the  Sun  neared  180°;  at 
which  positions  the  tide  would  be  again  at  its  maximum 
height,  and  its  apex  would  again  conform  to  the  positions  of 
both  bodies.  Thus,  between  conjunction  and  opposition  of 
the  two  tide-producers,  there  is  a  continual  advance  of  the 
tidal  apex  from  the  Sun,  and  therefore  a  continual 
lagging  of  the  tide  behind  the  Sun  at  any  particular  place 
upon  the  Earth.  In  fact,  in  half  a  synodic  revolution  of  the 
Moon  or  in  about  15  days,  the  tidal  apex  advances  from  west 
to  east  around  the  Earth  a  distance  of  180°,  or  just  the  same 
distance  that  the  Moon  moves  around  it;  so  that  the  Moon 
and  the  tide,  while  not  maintaining  an  exactly  parallel  con- 
formity throughout,  yet  move  around  the  Earth  at  precisely 
the  same  rate  on  the  average.  From  opposition  back  to  con- 
junction, the  same  reasoning  would  apply;  and  just  the  same 
movement  of  the  oposite  tidal  wave  around  the  Earth  would 
take  place  as  that  of  the  one  we  have  considered.  Many 
circumstances  would  modify  the  general  result,  however, 
such  as  the  varying  distances  of  the  tide-producers,  implying: 
their  various  angular  velocities  around  the  Earth,  and  conse- 
quently various  strains  of  their  connexions  upon  the  waters 
causing  various  heights  of  the  tides. 

Generally,  according  to  this  theory,  the  greater  amount  of 
lagging  of  the  tides  behind  the  Sun  would  be  at  the  Moon's 


280  THE  CONNECTIVE  THEORY  [153 

quadrature,  or  when  the  tide  is  at  its  minimum  height,  and 
the  least  amount  of  lagging  of  the  tide  would  be  at  the 
syzygies,  or  when  the  tide  is  at  its  maximum.  The  amount 
of  lag  would  thus  theoretically  vary  from  a  few  minutes  to 
about  two  hours  in  a  period  of  "twenty-four  hours ;  which 
appears  to  be  fully  borne  out  by  actual  obsevation, 

153.  Corroborative  Evidence  from  Inland  Sea  Tides. — It  is 
only  on  the  ocean  surface,  however,  that,  at  great  angular 
distances,  the  crests  of  the  lunar  and  of  the  solar  tides 
would  always  blend  into  one  common  apex.  Upon  lakes  and 
inland  seas,  tides  would  be  produced  by  only  one  of  the  two 
bodies  when  they  are  about  90°  apart,  because  the  area  of  the 
water  surface  is  so  small  that  when  one  body  would  be  in  a 
position  to  produce  a  tide  upon  it,  the  tide-raising  effect  of 
the  other  body  would  be  shut  out  by  the  land  surface  sur- 
rounding the  water.  Thus,  under  these  circumstances,  the 
tide  of  one  body  would  be  isolated  from  that  of  the  other,  and 
if  the  new  theory  be  the  correct  one,  the  solar  tide  would  be 
the  larger  of  the  two,  and  would  occur  regularly  every  twen- 
ty-four hours. 

Now,  upon  most  lakes  and  inland  seas  the  tides  are  so 
small,  owing  to  their  smiall  areas,  as  almost  to  escape  detec- 
tion. This,  however,  is  not  the  case  on  the  western  end  of 
funnel-shaped  Green  bay,  a  western  arm  of  Lake  Michigan; 
where  it  has  already  been  shown  (Art.  49)  how  morning  and 
evening  tides  of  considerable  size  regularly  occur.  It  has 
also  been  shown  in  the  same  place  how  much  greater  daily 
tides  occur  on  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  and  how  the  gravita- 
tional formula  of  the  tides  fits  so  badly  with  the  facts  that 
it  becomes  necessary  to  assume  a  terrene  tide  responding 
"twice  in  the  twenty-four  hours  to  the  deforming  force  of 
solar  gravitation." 

To  these  instances  may  be  added  the  fact  that  the  Severn 
Bore  occurs  regularly  every  evening  and  morning  "at  about 
7:30  to  9  o'clock  A.  M.  and  P.  M."*  The  height  of  this 
river  tide  is  three  to  four  feet,  and  it  is  best  seen  about  one 
day  after  new  or  full  Moon. 

*Vaughan   Cornish,   Nature,    62,    126. 


154]  THE    OCEAN   TIDES  281 

It  is  also  a  well-known  fact  that  the  average  semi-diurnal 
aerial  tide  is  observed  to  be  one-tenth  greater  at  the  time  of 
perihelion  than  at  the  time  of  aphelion,*  and  that,  although 
the  theoretically  more  powerful  lunar  tide  ought  to  be  49  per 
cent,  greater  at  perigee  than  at  apogee,  f  the  actual  difference 
of  the  aerial  tide  owing  to  this  cause  is  so  minute  as  almost 
to  escape  detection. 

It  has  already  been  observed  that  the  freedom  with  which 
wave  motion  is  transmitted  over  the  ocean  surface  permits 
the  masking  of  the  single  tidal  wave  in  each  day  which  other- 
wise would  appear  in  high  latitudes,  in  correspondence  with 
the  single  diurnal  aerial  tide  actually  observed  there.  But 
the  "singular  misbehavior  of  the  sea,  which  does  not  main- 
tain a  constant  level,  its  fluctuations  being  due,  according  to 
Prof.  Darwin,  to  the  irregular  melting  of  ice  in  the  polar  re- 
gions," J  indicates  that  in  some  localities,  or  on  some  occa- 
sions, the  single  diurnal  wave  of  the  polar  regions  is  not 
always  wholly  obliterated. 

How  many  other  observations,  similar  to  those  described 
in  the  abstracts  given  in  Art.  49  and  elsewhere,  have  been 
made  and  failed  to  receive  publicity  because  directly  con- 
tradicting a  universally  accepted  theory,  is  left  to  the  reader 
to  imagine.  The  wonder  is  that  even  these  have  been  brought 
to  light  when  either  they  or  the  current  tidal  theory,  being 
directly  at  variance  with  each  other,  must  be  absolutely  er- 
roneous. See  again  the  analect  quoted  from  Lord  Bacon 
at  the  head  of  this  chapter. 

154,  Discordance  of  Present  Tidal  Theories. — The  larger 
phenomena  of  the  tides,  both  aerial  and  oceanic,  are  thus 
seen  to  harmonize  perfectly  with  the  gene/al  principle  of  the 
new  theory;  and  there  seems  little  room  for  doubt  that  the 
minor  details  will  fit  equally  well.  There  appears  to  be  no 
objection  whatever  to  the  application  of  the  new  theory  to 
account  for  the  actual  facts  obesrved;  while  the  old  theory, 
on  the  contrary,  has  always  been,  and  is  today,  a  jumble  of 

*Alexander  Winchell,   World  Life,  p.   349. 
tNature,   43,   586. 
JNature,   62,   488. 


282  THE  CONNECTIVE  THEORY  j  154 

inextricable  contradictions.  There  is  no  present  theory  of 
the  tides  which  answers  all  the  requirements  of  tidal  phenom- 
ena. The  Wave  Theory  of  Sir  G."  B.  Airy  fails  in  its  appli 
cation  to  the  open  ocean.  The  Dynamical  Theory  of  La- 
place fails  in  its  application  to  shallows,  estuaries,  and  rivers. 
And  the  Equilibrium  Theory  of  Newton  and  Bernoulli!  is 
pronounced  simply  "contemptible"  by  Sir  G,  B.  Airy.* 

*Prof.  Alexander  Winchell,  World-Life,  p.  225. 


I. 


CHAPTER  XII 


TERRESTRIAL  ELECTRICITY  AND  MAGNETISM 


In  the  Journal  de  Physique,  Nov.  1899,  M.  A.  B.  Chauveau 
discusses  the  diurnal  variations  of  atmospheric  electricity,  to 
explain  which  no  less  than  about  thirty  different  theories 
have  been  proposed. — Nature,  61,  136. 

As  to  the  causes  of  the  secular  change,  various  hypoth- 
eses have  been  advanced,.  Thus  in  the  early  part  of  the 
last  century,  Halley  considered  the  change  was  chiefly  caused 
by  a  terella  with  two  poles.  .  .  .  rotating  within  and 
independently  of  the  outer  shell  of  the  earth.  .  .  .  the 
axes  of  the  two  globes  being  inclined  to  one  another,  but  hav- 
ing a  common  center.  Again,  Hansteen  at  the  beginning  of 
the  present  century  concluded  that  there  are  four  poles  of 
attraction,  and  computed  both  the  geographical  positions  and 
the  probable  period  of  revolution  of  the  dual  system  of  poles 
.  around  the  terrestrial  pole.  In  later  years  Sabine 
considered  the  secular  change  to  be  caused  by  the  progres- 
sive translation  of  the  point  of  attraction  at  present  in  North- 
ern Siberia,  this  point  of  attraction  resulting  from  cosmical 
action.  Walker  also  agreed  with  Sabine  as  to  the  cosmical 
origin  of  the  change,  Later  still,  Balfour  Stewart  gave  rea- 
sons for  attributing  the  secular  variation  to  the  result  pf  so- 
lar influence  of  a  cumulative  nature.  Keeping  in  view  these 
hypotheses  and  recalling  the  results  of  observation  during 
recent  years,  how  do  they  accord?  Observation  generally 
points  to  the  fixity  of  the  magnetic  poles.  .  .  in  respect 
to  the  geographic  poles. — E.  W.  CREAK. 

A  series  of  articles  on  the  origin  of  the  earth's  magnetic 
field  have  appeared  in  Terrestrial  Magnetism  during  the  last 
two  years  from  the  pen  of  the  editor  of  that  journal,  Dr.  L. 
A.  Bauer.  The  subject  has  been  recently  dealt  with  by  Prof. 
Schuster  in  his  address  to  the  Physical  Society  of  London  and 
by  Dr.  W.  F.  Swann  in  the  July  number  of  the  PJiil.  Mag.  The 
conclusion  to  which  each  examination  leads  is  that  none  of 
the  present  theories  offers  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  the 
earth's  magnetic  state. — Nature,  90,  287. 

155.     The   Idea  of  an    Immaterial   Substance. — Examining 


284  THE  CONNECTIVE  THEORY  [156 

mjore  closely  the  conception  of  the  Earth  which  the  new  the- 
ory implies,  it  is  seen  that  our  globe  revolves  annually  around 
the  Sun  in  what  is  called  the  plane  of  the  ecliptic;  and  that 
it  also  rotates  diurnally  upon  an  axis  which  is  inclined  from 
a  perpendicular  to  this  plane  at  an  angle  of  about  23.5°.  The 
present  theory  is  that  the  Earth  is  substantially  isolated 
from  all  other  heavenly  bodies;  that  it  is  held  to  the  Sun 
by  an  entity  called  force;  an  immaterial  thing  which  is  cap- 
able of  acting  upon  it  through  millions  of  miles  of  perfectly 
empty  space;  and  that  the  heat  of  the  Sun  and  the  light  of 
the  Sun  and  stars,  which  are  diffused  equally  in  all  directions, 
are  transmitted  to  it  by  the  vibrations  of  an  imaginary  and 
unaccountable  universal  etherial  medium,  which  the  re- 
searches of  recent  years  have  compelled  a  belief  in  as  an 
indispensable  vehicle  for  the  transmission  of  heat  and  light 
phenomena.  It  seems  quite  impossible  for  the  mind  to  grasp 
any  conceivable  mechanism  which  would  serve  as  a  basis 
for  such  conceptions;  and,  as  an  apparent  consequence,  they 
lead  to  a  great  deal  of  mental  confusion.  It  may  be,  as 
Prof.  Huxley  says,  that  "an  immaterial  substance  is  perfectly 
conceivable",  and  "may  have  any  conceivable  properties"; 
which  proposition,  he  says,  "may  be  affirmed  with. complete 
dialectic  safety  inasmuch  as  they  cannot  possibly  be  dis- 
proved,." But  whatever  may  be  the  "dialectic  safety"  of  their 
affirmation,  their  essential  elements  seem  utterly  to  elude 
the  grasp  of  the  intellect.  An  immaterial  substance  appears 
to  be  about  as  intelligible  or  conceivable  as  a  cold  heat,  a 
void  plenum,  or  a  black  white;  each  of  which  is,  in  plain 
words,  a  contradiction  in  terms,  and  cannot,  therefore  be 
regarded  as  conceivable  in  any  proper  sense  of  that  word. 
But  such  are  nevertheless,  the  so-called  conceptions  by 
means  of  which  many  phenomena  are  sought  to  be  inter- 
preted, and  such  appears  to  be  that  in  the  popular  theory 
regarding  the  Earth's  connection  with  the  Sun, 

156.  Differentiation  of  the  Earth's  Connexions. — Accord- 
ing to  the  new  theory,  the  Earth  is  the  center  of  a  very  great 
number  of  material  connexions,  or  bonds,  with  other  heavenly 
bodies.  These  envelope  it  on  all  sides  in  what  may  be  termed 


156]  TERRESTRIAL    ELECTRICITY    AND    MAGNETISM  285 

a  connective  atmosphere,  which,  as  far  as  the  daily  rotation 
of  the  Earth  is  concerned,  remains  fixed,  and  in  which  the 
body  of  the  Earth,  with  the  atmosphere  proper,  or  the  air, 
performs  its  daily  rotation.  The  connective  atmosphere,  as 
already  intimated,  is  much  rarer  than  the  air;  so  much  so, 
indeed,  that  when  the  air  is  about  all  extracted  from  a  space 
near  the  Earth's  surface,  it  is  said  to  be  an  empty  space 
or  vacuum,  although  all  of  the  connective  atmosphere  which 
the  space  originally  contained  still  remains  in  it.  There- 
fore, the  friction  which  the  rotation  of  the  Earth  in  the 
connective  atmosphere  would  engender,  would  reasonably  be 
very  small  indeed;  but  still,  the  connective  atmosphere  being 
material,  there  is  supposably  a  certain  amount  of  friction. 
Now  the  individual  connexions  which  make  up  this  connec- 
tive atmosphere  are  supposed  to  differ  materially  from  one 
another,  and  the  degree  of  difference  very  probably  corre- 
sponds to  the  degree  of  relationship  of  the  connected  bodies 
with  the  Earth,  Thus  the  grosser  connexions  would  be  those 
with  the  Sun  and  the  Moon,  which  are  respectively  the  pa- 
rent and  offspring  of  our  world,  the  next  in  grossness  would 
be  those  with  sister  planets  and  our  grand-sun,  then  those 
with  our  grand-grand-sun,  sister  suns,  and  the  satellites,  and 
so  on  back  to  the  remote  bodies  of  the  Sidereal  System,  and 
perhaps  even  to  innumerable  other  sidereal  systems 

But,  as  already  intimated  elsewhere,  although  the  connex- 
ions are  supposed  thus  to  differ  materially  from  one  another, 
it  is  not  implied  in  this  that  any  individual  connexion  is 
comiposed  of  a  form  of  matter  uniformly  different  from  that 
of  any  other  connexion.  On  the  contrary  it  is  reasonably 
supposable  that  each  connexion,  and  especially  each  of  those 
with  the  bodies  nearly  related  to  us,  is  made  up  of  many  dif- 
ferent forms  of  matter  having  different  degrees  of  gross- 
ness.  These  forms  we  may  designate  by  the  term  rays,  such 
as  tension  rays,  heat  rays,  light  rays,  etc.  The  supposition 
involves  only  that  the  grossest  rays  have  a  tendency  to  di- 
minish with  diminished  degrees  of  relationship,  until  there 
would  be  in  the  connexions  with  very  distant  bodies  ex- 
tremely little,  if  any,  of  such  rays,  and  chiefly,  or  only,  those 


286  THE  CONNECTIYE  THEORY  [157 

more  delicate  rays  which  transmit  to  us  light,  or  even  still 
more  delicate  kinds  of  motion,  of  the  existence  of  which 
we  have  no  conception  whatever.  The  most  delicate  rays 
may  exist  in  the  grossest  connexion,  but  not  so  the  grossest 
rays  in  the  most  distant  connexions. 

Another  probable  circumstance  is  that  the  nature  of  the 
connexions  changes  rapidly  with  the  degrees  of  relationship, 
and  especially  with  the  nearest  degrees;  so  that  the  Earth 
would  be  profoundly  affected,  at  least  with  respect  to  other 
phenomena  than  light,  only  by  the  nearest  related  bodies. 
Now  all  of  the  bodies  nearly  related  to  the  Earth,  such  as 
the  members  of  the  Solar  System,  or  of  its  sister  systems, 
or  the  primary  around  which  the  latter  immediately  revolve, 
are  all  supposed  to  lie  in,  or  very  nearly  in,  the  plane  of  the 
ecliptic.  The  Earth,  in  its  diurnal  rotation,  is  continually 
swept  by  the  connexions  of  these  bodies,  and  reasons  will 
shortly  be  found  for  believing  that  it  is  to  the  variations  of 
these  connexions,  or  of  certain  elements  of  them,  or  to  some 
influence  clearly  attributable  to  them,  that  the  hitherto  mys- 
terious phenomena  of  terrestrial  magnetism  are  due.  And 
this  not  only  on  theoretic  grounds,  but  also  from  the  actual 
observations  of  the  most  eminent  students  of  the  subject 

157.  Relation  of  the  Magnetic  Poles  to  the  Planes  of  the 
Earth's  Motion. — If  a  straight  line  perpendicular  to  the  plane 
of  the  ecliptic  should  pass  through  the  Earth's  center,  it 
would  pierce  the  Earth's  surface  in  the  Northern  hemis- 
phere 23.5°  on  one  side  of  the  geographic  pole,  and  the 
Southern  Hemisphere  23.5°  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  geo- 
graphic pole.  Now  when  it  is  well-known  from  actual  ob- 
servation that  this  is  almost  exactly  the  position  of  the 
Earth's  magnetic  axis,  the  north  pole  of  which  is  near  the 
Arctic  Circle  in  North  America,  and  the  south  pole  of  which 
is  near  the  Antarctic  Circle  south  of  Australia — it  seems  un- 
equivocably  to  refer  the  cause  of  the  Earth's  magnetism  to 
the  plane  of  the  ecliptic,  in  which,  as  we  have  seen,  those 
connexions  lie  to  which,  by  the  new  theory,  the  electric 
fluid  is  supposed  to  be  attributable. 

Without   further    preface,    the    explanation   of   terrestrial 


157]  TERRESTRIAL  ELECTRICITY  AND  MAGNETISM  287 

magnetism  suggested  by  the  new  theory  is  as  follows: — The 
connexions  of  the  bodies  mentioned  are  continually  varying 
in  quantity  upon  the  Earth,  owing  to  continual  variations  of 
the  distances  of  these  bodies  from  the  Earth,  and,  to  a  cer- 
tain extent,  perhaps,  to  other  causes.  The  connective  fluid 
of  these  connexions  penetrates  the  Earth-crust  to  an  indef- 
inite depth;  and,  if  aggregating  upon  the  Earth,  it  would  be 
liberated  in  that  crust,  and  flowing  at  first  in  the  direction 
of  least  resistance,  directly  away  from  the  ecliptic  plane  in 
which  the  pressure  is  exerted  upon  it,  would  thus  give  rise 
to  the  observed  earth-currents.  Away  from  the  ecliptic 
plane  means  either  north  or  south  of  it;  and  it  really  would 
make  little  practical  difference  which  direction  is  taken,  but 
the  path,  being  once  determined,  would  be  easier  to  follow 
thereafter  than  a  new  path.  In  the  case  of  the  Earth,  either 
all  or  the  greater  portion  of  the  fluid  at  first  appears  to  have 
traveled  northwards;  and  thus,  perhaps  by  mere  chance,  be- 
came permanently  established  in  this  direction.  As  the  con- 
nective fluid  continually  pours  inwards  upon  the  Earth  and 
northwards  through  the  crust,  and  as  it  approaches  the  far- 
thest point  of  that  crust  from  the  ecliptic  plane,  it  becomes 
concentrated  owing  to  the  curvature  of  the  Earth's  surface, 
and  partially  escapes  from  the  crust  into  the  atmosphere. 
This  partial  escape  of  the  fluid  would  continue  and  grad- 
ually increase  in  amount  until  the  farthest  point  of  the  crust 
was  reached,  where  the  remaining  and  relatively  greater  por- 
tion would  escape,  and  thus  establish  the  North  Magnetic 
Pole.  The  atmosphere  at  the  north  becoming  saturated,  the 
fluid  would  find  its  way  southwards  on  all  sides  of  the  Earth, 
and,  crossing  the  Equator,  would  be  again  concentrated  by 
the  Earth's  curvature,  and  therefore  would  partially  escape 
into  the  Earth's  crust,  and  so  establish  the  South  Magnetic 
Pole*  The  earth-currents  again  flowing  northwards  tow- 
ards the  North  Magnetic  Pole,  the  circuit  would  be  complete. 
If  the  connective  fluid  be  leaving  the  Earth,  instead  of  ar- 
riving upon  it,  the  connexion  suffering  the  tension  would 
be  supplied  from  the  earth-currents,  just  as  in  arriving  it 
was  supplied  to  them.  This  explanation,  following  as  a  nee- 


288  THE  CONNECTIVE  THEORY  [158 

essary  consequence  from  the  main  principle  of  the  new  the- 
ory, has  certainly  the  advantage  of  great  simplicity;  and, 
moreover,  as  it  is  examined  further,  it  is  thought  that  it  will 
be  found  to  correspond  exactly  with,  and  fully  explain,  the 
observed  facts. 

It  appears  to  be  the  belief  at  the  present  time  that  the 
electric  fluid  ascends  at  the  Equator  and  there  divides  into 
north  and  south  streams  which  descend  into  the  crust  at  the 
Poles.*  Actual  observation,  however,  appears  to  contradict 
this  view.  From  the  Report  of  the  magnetic  results  of  the 
Challenger  Expedition,  it  is  found: 

"(1)  That  in  islands  north  of  the  magnetic  equator,  the 
north-seeking  end  of  the  needle  is  generally  attracted  verti- 
cally downwards,  and  horizontally  towards  the  higher  parts 
of  the  land;  (2),  south  of  the  magnetic  equator  the  opposite 
effects  are  observed,  the  north-seeking  end  being  repelled: 
in  both  cases  by  an  amount  above  that  due  to  the  position 
of  the  island  on  the  earth  considered  as  a  magnet. "f 

This  seems  clearly  to  show  that,  if  north  of  the  Equator 
the  currents  are  ascending,  south  of  it  they  must  be  descend- 
ing, in  order  to  produce  the  observed  opposite  effects  upon 
the  needle. 

158.  The  Earth  a  Magnet. — In  fact  the  Earth  is  a  magnet, 
and  its  electric  currents  are  apparently  the  perfect  analogues 
of  those  of  a  magnet.  If  a  common  bar  magnet  is  placed  un- 
der a  sheet  of  paper  or  glass  upon  which  are  sprinkled  pro- 
miscuously some  iron  filings,  upon  tapping  the  sheet  the 
filings  will  be  observed  to  arrange  themselves  in  beautiful 
curves  or  semi-ellipses  extending  from  pole  to  pole.  These 
are  the  "magnetic  curves"  which,  Professor  John  Tyndall 
tells  us,  so  fascinated  Faraday 

"that  the  greater  portion  of  his  life  was  devoted  to  pondering 
over  them.  He  invested  the  space  through  which  they  run 
with  a  kind  of  materiality;  and  tne  probability  is,  that  the 
progress  of  science  by  connecting  the  phenomena  of  magne- 
tism with  the  luminiferous  ether,  will  prove  these  'lines  of 
force',  as  Faraday  loved  to  call  the  magnetic  curves,  to  rep- 

*See  Prof.  S.  P.  Thomson's  Electricity  and  Magnetism,  p.  145. 
fNature,  41,  106. 


158]  TERRESTRIAL  ELECTRICITY  AND  MAGNETISM  289 

resent  a  condition  of  this  mysterious  substratum  of  all  rad- 
iant action."*  , 

Evidently  this  is  just  what  the  new  theory  does,  except 
that,  instead  of  an  imaginary  luminiferous  ether,  there  is 
the  substance  or  fluid  of  the  Earth's  connexions.  The  ground- 
currents  of  the  Earth  flowing  northwards  and  escaping  into 
the  air  chiefly  about  the  North  Magnetic  Pole  manifest  them- 
selves in  the  "auroral  circle."  The  Northern  Lights  would, 
therefore,  be  the  electric  currents  of  the  Earth  ascending 
into  the  air  preparatory  to  their  journey  southwards  in  that 
element  Their  visibility  would  be  owing  to  their  concentra- 
tion in  the  north  by  the  Earth's  curvature;  but  as  they  move 
southwards,  they  spread  over  a  greater  area,  become  more 
diffused,  and  so  become  invisible^  It  is  this  electric  flow 
southwards  through  the  air  that  would  determine  the  di- 
rection of  the  magnetic  needle;  which  is  simply  another  mag- 
net almost  exactly  similar  to  the  Earth,  having  similar  elec- 
tric currents  circulating  northwards  through  Its  surface,  from 
which  they  escape  and  pass  southwards  to  the  opposite  hemi- 
sphere, or  pole,  of  the  needle,  and  so  complete  the  circuit. 
The  atmospheric  currents  of  the  needle  would  evidently  be 
disposed  to  arrange  themselves  parallel  to  the  atmospheric 
currents  of  the  Earth,  as  this  arrangement  offers  the  least 
resistance;  and  this  parallelism  of  the  needle  to  the  electric 
currents  of  the  Earth,  throughout  their  length  and  their  var- 
ious positions  will  be  seen,  from  a  cursory  study  of  the 
"magnetic  curves",  to  determine  both  the  dip  and  the  declin- 
ation of  the  needle. 

According  to  Werner  Siemens,  all  bodies  are  filled  with 
such  circular  currents,  and  magnetic  bodies  differ  from  non- 
magnetic bodies  only  inasmuch  as  the  number  or  quantity 
of  circular  currents  present  in  the  unit  volume  is  niuch 
greater  in  the  first  case  than  in  the  second,  f  This  might  ac- 
count for  the  attraction  by  the  magnet  of  non-magnetized 
substances,  such  as  soft  iron.  But  perhaps  other  causes  may 

*Humboldt  Library  of  Science,  4,   20. 

tPhil.  Mag.,  April,  1885 ;  Journal  of  Physics,  September,  1885. 


290  THE  CONNECTIVE  THEORY  [159 

be  found  for  this  attraction  when  the  molecular  mechanism 
of  these  phenomena  is  more  closely  examined,. 

159.  Irregular  Cours.es  of  the  Terrestrial  Magnetic  Lines. 
— As  the  magnetic  poles  of  the*Earth  do  not  coincide  with 
the  geographic  poles,  so  neither  will  the  magnetic  meridians 
and  equator  coincide  with  the  geographic  meridians  and 
equator.  Therefore,  the  course  of  the  atmospheric  electric 
currents  to  the  South  Magnetic  Pole  would  be  somewhat  an- 
omalous, geographically  considered.  But  whatever  direction 
these  electric  streams  would  take,  the  magnetic  needle  ad- 
justs itself  parallel  to  them,  and  points  in  the  direction 
whence  the  currents  come.  As  the  currents  move  southwards 
over  the  Western  Hemisphere,  since  the  pole  towards  which 
they  move  is  situated  in  the  Eastern  Hemisphere,  they  would 
be  deflected  both  eastwards  and  westwards,  in  somewhat 
diagonal  courses,  towards  their  destination.  East  of  this 
place  of  divergence,  the  needle  would  point  westwards;  west 
of  it,  the  needle  would  point  eastwards;  and  in  it,  the  needle 
would  point  due  north.  Similarly  in  the  Eastern  Hemisphere, 
there  would  be  a  confluence  of  the  previously  divergent  cur- 
rents, along  the  line  of  which  the  needle  would  point  due 
north,  east  of  it,  eastwards,  and  west  of  it,  westwards.  These 
lines  of  divergence  and  confluence  would  be  the  lines  of  no 
declination.  Their  courses  are  not  straight,  but  veer  irreg- 
ularly eastwards,  especially  the  line  in  the  Eastern  Hemi- 
sphere. These  irregularities  in  their  courses  would  be  ow- 
ing probably  to  the  equatorial  protuberance  of  the  Earth,  to 
various  irregularities  of  the  land  surface,  such  as  mountain 
ranges  and  elevated  plateaus,  and  also  to  the  nature  and  di- 
rection of  the  air-currents  through  or  in  which  the  electric 
currents  move. 

The  eastern  line  passes  southeastwards  through  the  White 
Sea,  eastern  Russia,  the  Caspian  Sea,  Persia,  the  Arabian 
Sea,  then  veers  eastwards  through  the  Indian  Ocean,  pass- 
ing southwards  through  the  western  part  of  Australia  to 
about  the  Antarctic  Circle,.  A  strong  corroboration  of  this 
material  current  theory  is  here  met  with  in  the  effect  which 
the  lofty  plateaus  and  mountain  ranges  have  upon  their  sup- 


160]  TERRESTRIAL  ELECTRICTY  AND  MAGNETISM  291 

posed  course.  The  present  eastern  line  of  no  declination 
avoids  these  obstructions  and  after  passing  around  them 
along  the  low-lying  regions  veers  suddenly  eastwards  about 
to  its  proper  position.  More  than  a  century  ago,  the  line 
passed  on  the  eastern  side  of  these  mountains  and  plateaus; 
but  as  it  moved  gradually  westwards,  it  became  divided  by 
the  obstruction  and  passed  around  it  in  both  directions. 
There  remains  even  today  an  isolated  oval  area  of  western 
magnets,  including  the  Japan  Empire  and  portions  of  east- 
ern Asia;  which  would  evidently  be  owing  to  the  downward 
sweep  of  currents  from  the  west  which  had  been  deflected 
upwards  into  the  cirrus  regions  by  the  lofty  mountain 
ranges.  This  isolated  region  is  continually  decreasing  in 
size;  and  as  the  line  moves  farther  westwards,  will  event- 
ually disappear.  Indeed  over  all  this  region,  the  deviation 
of  the  needle  is  very  slight;  so  that  from  the  Caspian  Sea 
to  the  Japan  Sea,  the  needle  points  almost  due  north.  That  is, 
the  direction  of  the  needle  is  chiefly  determined  by  the  elec- 
tric currents  originating  in  these  regions  themselves.  There 
seems  to  be  every  reason  for  believing,  then,  that  if  the 
whole  of  Asia  were  as  low  as  its  northern  portion,  the  line 
would  pursue  its  normal  southeastern  course  unaccompanied 
by  any  peculiarity  of  loops  or  isolated  ovals,  and  that  the 
Earth  would  be  about  equally  divided  into  two  hemispheres 
of  eastern  and  western  magnets. 

160.  Height  of  the  Aurora. — In  offering  this  view  of  the 
deflection  of  atmospheric  electric  currents,  it  is  of  course 
not  unknown  that  the  height  of  these  currents  is  held  by 
many  eminent  observers  to  be  much  more  elevated  than  the 
highest  range  of  mountains  on  the  globe.  M.  Flogel  calcu- 
lated the  height  of  several  aurorae  which  appeared  in  the  au- 
tumn of  1870,  and  concluded  that  only  the  very  lowest  parts 
of  the  aurora  came  at  all  within  the  limits  of  the  atmosphere : 
he  gave  the  actual  limits  as  150  to  500  kilometres.  M.  Rei- 
mann  found  a  height  of  from  800  to  900.  kilometres  for  an 
aurora  on  October  25,  1870;  and  Baron  Nordenskiold  came  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  mean  height  of  the  aurora  was  about 


292  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [160 

200  kilometres,  or  more  than  twenty  times  the  height  of  the 
highest  mountain  on  the  Earth,. 

The  opinion  is  here  ventured,  however,  that  some  error 
may  possibly  have  vitiated  these  calculations.  In  support 
of  this  it  may  be  stated  that  the  more  recent  observations 
give  much  smaller  values  to  the  heights  of  the'  electric  cur- 
rents. From  observations  made  at  Godthaab,  by  M.  Paulsen, 
and  near  Cape  Farewell,  in  1885,  by  MM.  Garde  and  Eberlin, 
the  heights  of  the  aurorae  were  found  to  range  from  0.6  to 
67.8  kilometres,  and  from  1,6  to  15.5  kilometres,  respectively. 
And  the  Swedish  International  Expedition  at  Spitzbergen 
found  the  extremes  of  these  heights  tobe  0.6  and  29.2  kilo- 
metres, M.  Paulsen  gives  accounts  of  several  appearances 
of  aurorae  beneath  the  clouds  and  the  summits  of  moun- 
tains ;  *  and  M.  Hildebrandsson  has  seen  aurorae  in  a  com- 
pletely clouded  sky.f 

But  perhaps  the  most  conclusive  observation  confirma- 
tory of  a  low  elevation  for  the  electric  currents  is  the  fol- 
lowing : 

"Arsuk  Fiord  is  in  61°  15'  north  latitude.  This  fiord  is 
2  miles  wide  by  25  miles  long,  and  its  shores  are  steep,  rocky 
cliffs,  from  one  to  four  thousand  feet  high,.  Midway  of  its 
length,  on  the  south  side,  lies  Ivigtut.  At  this  station  the 
aurora  light  begins  with  a  development  in  the  west  over  the 
north  of  the  fiord,  and  as  it  progresses  eastwards  follows 
the  direction  of  the  fiord,  sometimes  covering  its  entire 
length,  and  having  outliers  over  the  smaller  arms  of  the 
fiord;  but  ordinarily  the  western  part  of  this  auroral  band 
disappears  before  the  development  has  extended  to  the  east- 
ern end  and  new  bands  of  light  come  again  from  the  western 
end  eastward.  The  phenomenon  is  best  developed  at  two 
hours  after  sunset,  and  appears  then  to  be  near  the  Earth's 
surface,  occasionally  only  1000  feet  above  sea-level." $ 

In  fact,  the  electric  currents  of  the  atmosphere  are  here 
observed  to  have  their  courses  modified  by  elevated  ob- 
structions in  a  manner  precisely  similar  to  that  which  the  ir- 
regular course  of  the  eastern  line  of  no  declination  has  led 

*Royal  Danish  Academy,   February,    1889. 
tlbid. 

JZeitschrift  der  Oesterreichischen  Gesselschaft  fur  Meteorologie, 
XVIII,  p.  320;  Prof.  Cleveland  Abbe,  An  Account  of  Progress  in  Meteor- 
ology in  the  Year  1883,  p.  70. 


161]  TERRESTRIAL  ELECTRICITY  AND  MAGNETISM  293 

us  deductively  to  expect.  There  appears  to  be  a  certain  ele- 
vation or  density  of  the  atmosphere  that  offers  the  least  re- 
sistance to  the  movement  of  the  electric  currents.  Indeed 
it  is  well-known  that  in  a  very  rare  atmosphere  no  electric 
current  whatever  can  take  place,.  Prof.  S.  P.  Thompson 
says: 

"It  is  possible  to  exhaust  a  tube  so  perfectly  that  none  of 
our  electric  machines  or  appliances  can  send  a  spark  through 
the  vacuous  space,  even  over  so  short  a  distance  as  one  cen 
timetre,  ...  A  perfect  vacuum  is  a  perfect  insulator."* 

It  would  be  in  regions  far  below  such  a  density  as  this, 

however,  that  the  bulk  of  the  aerial  electric  streams  would 

i 

find  the  most  favorable  conditions  for  their  transmission; 
and  evidently  not  at  the  place  of  greatest  density  either;  for 
although  the  electric  currents  permeate  all  of  the  lower  at- 
mospheric strata,  yet,  as  we  ascend  from  the  Earth's  surface, 
the  voltage  increases  very  rapidly. 

161.  Diurnal  Variation  of  the  Magnetic  Needle. — There 
are  four  different  kinds  of  variation  of  the  magnetic  needle, 
the  diurnal,  the  annual,  the  irregular,  and  the  secular.  And 
on  the  basis  of  the  foregoing  views,  each  of  these  readily 
admits  of  an  explanation  which  seems  really  beautiful  in  its 
simplicity. 

It  has  already  been  noticed  how  the  edges  of  the  Sun's 
connexion  would  originate  two  aerial  waves  or  tides  between 
which  would  be  two  aerial  troughs  or  depressions;  and  also 
how  this  is  shown  to  be  the  actual  fact  by  the  barometer. 
It  may  now  be  pointed  out  that  the  diurnal  variations  con- 
form  exactly  to  these  aerial  waves  and  depressions.  The 
barometric  maxima  are  from  8  to  10  A.  M.  and  8  to  11  P.  M., 
and  the  minima  are  about  equi-distant  from  these  hours.  Now 
M.  Arago,  from  a  careful  series  of  observations  of  the  mag- 
netic elements,  deduced  the  following  results: 

"At  about  eleven  at  night  the  north  end  of  the  needle  be- 
gins to  move  from  west  to  east,  and  having  reached  its 
greatest  easterly  excursion  at  about  a  quarter  past  eight  in 
the  morning,  returns  to  the  west  to  attain  its  greatest  west- 
erly excursion  at  a  quarter  past  one.  It  then  moves  again 

*Electricity  and  Magnetism,  p.  298. 


294  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [161 

to  the  east,  and  having  reached  its  greatest  easterly  excur- 
sion at  half  past  eight  in  the  evening,  returns  to  the  west, 
and  attains  its  greatest  westerly  excursion  at  eleven,  as  at 
starting."* 

A  moment  ago  we  noticed  liow  the  electric  currents  are 
prone  to  follow  the  low-lying,  and  therefore  denser  portions 
of  the  atmosphere  by  avoiding  the  elevated  mountain  ranges 
and  plateaus  of  central  Asia.  We  now  notice  a  similar  tend- 
ency of  the  electric  currents  to  follows  the  denser  aerial 
waves  or  tides,  rather  than  the  rarer  aerial  depressions.  At 
about  midnight  We  are  in  the  middle  of  the  aerial  depres- 
sion; but  the  morning  aerial  tide  is  advancing  in  the  east, 
into  which  the  electric  currents  have  collected  in  the  far 
north,  and  from  which  they  spread  out  laterally  on  both  sides 
of  the  wave  on  their  way  southwards.  From  about  midnight 
to  8.  A.  M.,  therefore,  the  needle  would  point  more  and  more 
eastwards  into  partial  parallelism  with  these  branch  cur- 
rents. At  8  A.  M.,  when  near  the  center  of  the  tide  the 
eastward  deflection  is  at  a  maximum.  Then  the  center  of 
the  wave  passes,  and  the  needle  points  westwards  towards 
parallelism  with  the  lateral  currents  issuing  from  its  eastern 
side.  At  about  midday  the  needle  is  again  in  an  aerial  de- 
pression; but  the  evening  tide  is  advancing  in  the  east,  tow- 
ards which  the  needle  again  turns.  Near  the  center  of  this 
wave,  or  at  about  8  P.  M.,  there  is  another  maximum  of 
easterly  declination.  After  which  the  needle  again  follows 
the  wave  westwards  to  about  midnight  as  before. 

This  remarkably  direct  evidence  in  favor  of  the  views  here 
advanced,  is  also  strongly  corroborated  by  the  phenomena 
of  aurora  and  atmjospheric  electricity.  When  the  aerial 
tide  is  over  a  place,  the  aurora  are  at  a  maximum.  At  Cum- 
berland Sound,  N.  A.,  the  greater  number  of  aurorae  always 
occur  at  about  6  A.  M.  and  10  P.  M.f  And  the  maxima  of 
electricity  in  the  air,  as  determined  from  six  months'  ob- 
servation at  the  observatory  of  Lausanne,  are  approximately 
at  7  A.  M.  and  9  P.  M. ;  and  the  minima  are  at  3  to  5  P.  M. 

*Prof.  R.  A.  Proctor,  Humboldt  Library  of   Science,   2,   8. 
fOrray  Taft  Sherman,  Professional  Papers  U.  S.  S.  S.,  No.  10,  p.  199. 


162]  TERRESTRIAL  ELECTRICITY  AND  MAGNETISM  295 

and  3  to  4  A.  M.  *  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  tidal 
wave  does  not  occur  at  different  places  on  the  same  geo- 
graphical meridian  at  the  same  time  except  during  the  equi- 
noxes. Hence  arise  the  slight  differences  in  the  hours  of 
the  occurence  of  auroral  and  electric  maxima  at  places  hav- 
ing the  same  longitude.  When  allowance  is  made  for  this 
circumstance,  the  maxima  of  the  aurorae  and  atmospheric 
electricity  appear  to  correspond  exactly  to  the  passages  of 
the  aerial  tidal  waves, 

In  still  further  confirmation  of  these  views,  it  is  observed 
that,  in  accordance  with  the  single  diurnal  maximum  of  high 
latitudes — i.  e.,  the  midday  aerial  tide  caused  by  the  pulling 
southwards  or  northwards  of  the  particles  of  the  air  by  the 
northern  or  the  southern  edges  of  the  Sun's  connexion,  and 
the  midnight  depression  corresponding  to  the  absence  of  this 
connexion — we  have,  from  the  observation  of  aurorae  at 
Godthaab  by  Prof.  Kleinschmidt  in  1865  to  1880,  a  southward 
movement  of  the  auroral  zone  during  the  day  and  a  northward 
movement  during  the  night.f 

Moreover,  although  it  is  the  chief  agent,  it  is  not  the  Sun 
alone  that  affects  the  terrestrial  magnetic  and  electric  ele- 
ments; for  Sabine  has  discovered  that  the  Moon  also  (as  by 
the  new  theory  we  should  naturally  expect,  and  in  about  the 
ratio  which  that  theory  assigns)  has  a  distinctly  traceable 
and  similar  connection  with  them;  the  lunar  effects  in  the 
lunar  day  being  the  analogues  of  the  solar  effects  in  the  so- 
lar day.J 

162.  The  Annual  Variation  of  the  Magnetic  Needle.— The 
annual  variation  of  the  magnetic  needle  is  chiefly  a  modifi- 
cation of  the  diurnal  variation.  Thus,  in  the  summer  season 
of  the  Northern  Hemisphere,  the  daily  variation  is  about 
twice  as  great  as  in  the  winter  season.  This  is  evidently 
accounted  for  by  the  solar  connexion  sweeping  more  directly 
over  this  hemisphere  at  this  time.  The  maximum  tidal  effect 
of  the  connexion  is  at  the  edges;  but  it  is  the  aerial  tides  of 
the  east  and  the  west  edges  that  would  chiefly  carry  the 

*Prof.  H.  Dufour,  Zeitschrift  der  Oesterreichischen  Gesselschaft  fur 
Meteorologie,  19,  129. 

tProf.  Sophus  Tromholt,  Om  Ndrdlysets  Perioder;   Ibid,   18,  306. 
JProf.  R.  A.  Proctor,  Humboldt  Library  of  Science,  2,  10. 


296  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [163 

electric  currents,  because  the  direction  of  the  electric  cur- 
rents and  these  edges  approximately  coincide.  In  our  sum- 
mer these  edges  of  the  solar  connexion  are  chiefly  in  the 
Northern  Hemisphere,  and  therefore  we  have  there  a  maxi- 
mum diurnal  variation.  In  our  winter  these  edges  are  chiefly 
in  the  Southern  Hemisphere,  and  therefore  the  maximum  di- 
urnal variation  is  then  in  that  region,  and  we  have  our  min- 
imum diurnal  variation. 

It  has  already  been  observed  (Art.  123)  that  there  are 
maxima  and  minima  of  aurorae  corresponding  to  the  maxima 
and  minima  of  sun-spots  and  of  the  planetary  factor  of  the 
connexion-variations  upon  the  Earth.  But  as  the  sidereal 
factor  of  the  connexion-variations  upon  the  Earth  is  shown, 
by  the  phenomena  of  atmospheric  precipitation,  to  predomi- 
nate over  all  the  other  factors,  it  would  seem  that  there 
should  also  be  a  maximum  and  minimum  of  atmospheric 
electricity  corresponding  to  the  variation  of  this  factor  also; 
that  is,  a  maximum  sometime  in  the  first  half  of  the  year  and 
a  minimum  in  the  last  halt  And  this  appears  to  conform 
precisely  to  the  facts  so  far  as  they  are  known.  Thus  it  has 
been  found  by  P.  F.  Denza  from  twelve  years'  observation 
— six  times  daily — at  Moncalieri  that  "the  daily  variations 
show  themselves  clearly  in  the  winter  and  summer,  having 
two  maxima  after  sunset  and  sunrise.  The  yearly  variations 
attain  their  maximla  at  the  end  of  February,  the  minima  at 
the  end  of  September,"*  But  while  the  observations  thus 
generally  accord  with  the  theory,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind 
that  many  causes  (some  of  which  are  known  and  many  of 
which  are  probably  unknown)  would  modify  the  actual  maxi- 
ma and  minima  of  atmospheric  electricity;  and  moreover  our 
system  of  observation  of  the  phenomena  involved  is,  to  say 
the  least,  very  incomplete.  • 

163.  The  Irregular  Variations  of  the  Magnetic  Needle. — 
The  irregular  variations  of  the  magnetic  elements  are  such 
as  break  in  suddenly,  and  often  with  great  violence,  upon 
the  quiet  regularity  of  the  others.  There  is  scarcely  a  doubt, 
even  among  the  ablest  exponents  of  the  present  views  upon 

*Prof.  Cleveland  Abbe,  An  Account  of  Progress  in  Meteorology  in 
1879-81,  p.  88. 


163]  TERRESTRIAL  ELECTRICITY  AND  MAGNETISM  297 

the  subject,  that  many,  if  not  all,  of  these  irregular  vari- 
ations are  owing  to  some  disturbances  taking  place  on  the 
Sun.     How    such    disturbances    could    be    transmitted,    they 
frankly  admit  their  inability  to  explain.     But  they  have  ob- 
served the  disturbances  take  place  upon  the  Sun;  they  have 
noticed  that  these  disturbances  were  almost  immediately  fol- 
lowed by  violent  disturbances  of  the  Earth's  magnetic  and 
electric  elements;   and  therefore  the  connection  of  the  two 
disturbances  was  undeniable.     Such  instances  need  not  here 
be  particularized  as  they  are   generally  well-known.     Their 
explanation  seems  sufficiently  simpley     As  just  stated,  it  is 
known  from  observation  that  tremendous  convulsions  occur 
upon  the  Sun.     Enormous  masses  of  gas  and  flame  are  hurled 
with  frightful  energy  upwards  into  its  outer  atmosphere.     If 
such  eruptions  occur  upon  the  side  of  the  Sun  next  to  the 
Earth,  the  disturbance  is  at  once  communicated  to  the  con- 
nexion between  the  two  bodies,  by  the  elastic  medium  of 
which  it  is  conveyed  as  an  enormous  wave  or  pulse  towards 
our  planet.     This  pulse  is  transmitted  to  the  earth-currents, 
and  by  the  earth-currents  northwards  to  the  atmospheric  cur- 
rents,    where     it      becomes      manifest      as      the      aurora, 
and  the  intensity  and  momentum  of  which  drives  the  aerial 
currents,  and  consequently  the  magnetic  needle,  from  their 
ordinary  courses,  often  to  the  comparatively  great  extent  of 
several  degrees,     Thus  would  the  disturbance  originating  on 
the  Sun  be  transmitted  to  the  Earth's  atmosphere.     "Nay," 
in  the  words  of  Prof.   Proctor,  which  appear  to  be  at  least 
half  the  truth,  "it  is  even  probable  that  every  flicker  and  cor- 
ruscation   of   our   auroral   displays    correspond   with   similar 
manifestations  upon   every  planet  which  travels  round  the 
Sun."     It  may  not  be  the  amount  of  connective  fluid  trans- 
mitted to  the  Earth  by  this  solar  wave  that  wholly  causes 
the  terrestrial  perturbation.     The  more  probable  causes  are 
the  violent  energy  of  its  transmittal,  its  simultaneity  over  the 
entire  hemisphere  next  to  the  Sun,  and  the  convergence  of 
the  rays  of  the  solar  connexion  as  they  approach  the  Earth. 
But  even  its  amount  is  far  from  insignificant,  as  the  solar 


298  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [164 

eruption  sometimes  continues  for  hours,  even  days,  shooting 
upwards  among  the  planetary  connexions. 

161  The  Secular  Variation  of  the  Magnetic  Needle. —  (a) 
The  Earliest  Observations. — The  earliest  observations  of  the 
secular  variation  are  probably  those  taken  at  Paris.  At  that 
city,  about  the  year  1541;  the  needle  pointed  7°  east;  and 
about  1580,  11.5°  east,  being  the  maximum  eastern  declina- 
tion. The  needle  then  began  to  move  westwards,  and  about 
1663  had  returned  to  the  meridian,  The  declination  then  be- 
came westerly,  and  continued  to  increase  until,  about  1814, 
it  attained  its  maximum,  22°  11'  west  of  north.  It  is  now 
gradually  moving  eastwards. 

In  London,  the  declination  of  the  needle,  about  the  year 
1576,  was  15°  11'  east;  about  1657,  due  north;  about  1700,  9° 
40'  west;  about  1778,  22°  11'  west;  about  1819,  nearly  25° 
west;  and  about  1843,  23°  8'  west. 

At  Boston,  the  decimation  about  1708  was  9°  west;  about 
1807,  6°  5'  west;  about  1840,  9°  18'  west. 

(b)  Explanation  of  the  Observations  at  London  and 
Paris. — In  explanation  of  these  various  positions  of  the  mag- 
netic needle,  it  may  be  well  to  reconsider  some  things  already 
noticed.  The  two  lines  of  no  declination  are  about  on  op- 
posite sides  of  the  Earth.  The  one  now  in  the  Western 
Hemisphere  is  theoretically  the  line  of  divergence  of  the 
electric  currents;  and  that  in  the  Eastern  Hemisphere,  the 
line  of  confluence  of  these  currents.  And,  it  being  granted 
that  the  needle  points  in  the  direction  whence  the  electric 
currents  come,  it  follows  that  the  maximum  eastern  or  west- 
ern declination  at  any  place,  will  be,  other  things  equal, 
when  it  is  midway  between  the  two  lines  of  no  declination; 
western,  if  east  of  the  line  of  divergence,  eastern  if  west  of 
it.  The  motion  of  the  aerial  electric  currents  is  principally 
southward  and  at  the  two  lines  of  no  declination  is  wholly  so. 
The  divergence  close  to  the  western  line  would  be  slight,  but 
farther  away  from  it  the  angle  would  increase;  but  beyond  a 
certain  limit  the  angle  would  decrease,  as  the  opposite  line 
of  convergence  was  approached,. 

Now,  according  to  this  theory,  Paris,  about  the  year  1580, 


164]  TERRESTRIAL  ELECTRICITY  AND  MAGNETISM  299 

must  have  been  nearly  midway  between  the  two  lines,  and 
west  of  the  line  divergence,  as  the  declination  was  easterly. 
But  the  line  of  divergence  was  slowly  advancing  westwards 
over  the  Earth  (the  cause  of  which  will  shortly  be  discussed), 
and  the  divergent  angle  of  the  currents  consequently  di- 
minishing, the  needle  would  begin  to  move  westwards,  and  so 
continue.  After  eighty-three  years,  or  about  1663,  the  line  of 
divergence  would  have  advanced  westwards  to  the  city,  and 
the  needle  pointed  due  north.  Still,  after  this,  the  needle 
would  keep  moving  westwards  into  parallelism  with  the  east- 
ern divergent  currents,  until  some  151  years  after  the  passage 
of  the  line,  or  about  1814,  the  city  was  again  nearly  midway 
between  the  two  lines,  but  east  of  the  line  of  divergence. 
After  this  the  needle  would  begin  to  move  east,  in  obedience 
to  the  gradually  diminishing  angle  of  divergence  of  the  cur- 
rents as  the  line  of  confluence  advanced  westwards.  This 
eastern  movement  still  continues  to  the  present  time,  the 
line  of  confluence  being  yet  advanced  only  as  far  as  the 
Caspian  Sea. 

The  magnetic  history  of  London  is  similar  in  about  all 
respects,  save  the  dates.  This  city  is  about  3°  north  and  2° 
west  of  Paris,  and  what  is  chiefly  remarkable  in  the  magnetic 
history  of  the  two  cities  is  that  the  divergent  line  of  no  de- 
cimation advanced  to  London  about  6  years  before  it  arrived 
at  Paris.  In  London  the  needle  pointed  due  north  about 
1657;  in  Paris  it  did  not  point  due  north  until  about  1663. 
But  here  again  we  see  the  effect  of  mountain  ranges  in  de- 
flecting the  electric  currents.  Over  the  low-lands  of  Russia 
and  Germany  the  magnetic  line  advanced  at  an  approximately 
uniform  rate,  but  farther  south  the  advance  of  the  line  was 
delayed  by  the  apparent  obstruction  of  the  European  Alps 
and  the  elevated  regions  surrounding  them,  so  that  it  prob- 
ably formed  a  loop  extending  eastwards  around  these  regions, 
as  about  a  century  later  the  opposite  line  formed  a  loop 
around  the  Asiatic  ranges  and  plateaus.  Thus  it  may  have 
been  that  the  magnetic  meridian  appeared  at  London  before 
ft  appeared  at  Paris,  southeast  of  London.  Paris  would 


300  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [164 

have  been  simply  inside  the  loop  surrounding  high  Europe, 
and  London  just  outside  of  it  on  the  north. 

In  further  support  of  this  view,  we  further  observe  that 
the  maximum  western  decimation  occurred  at  Paris  about 
the  year  1814,  while  at  London,  on  the  contrary,  it  occurred 
about  the  year  1819,  or  about  the  time  it  was  normally  due. 
In  the  formter  year  at  Paris,  the  effect  of  the  obstruction 
would  have  been  to  check  the  western  movement  of  the  line 
(and  therefore  the  variation  of  the  magnetic  needle)  to  a 
later  time  than  if  the  obstruction  had  not  interfered;  while 
in  the  latter  year,  after  the  line  did  overcome  the  obstruction, 
its  progress  was  comparatively  rapid  with  respect  to  that 
locality,  and  fully  made  up  for  its  previous  delay;  whereas 
London,  being  farther  removed  from  the  obstruction,  would 
have  a  more  uniform  variation  of  the  magnetic  lines. 

(c)  The  Southeastern    Direction  of  the   Lines  of  no  De- 
clination.— Another  remarkable  peculiarity  to  be  noticed  is 
the  southeastern  direction  in  which  the  lines  of  no  declina- 
tion extend,  the  southern  portion  lagging  behind  the  northern. 
This  may  be  attributed,  partly  at  least,  to  the  tenacity  with 
which  the  electric  currents  apparently  cling  to  the  land  sur- 
face in  preference  to  wide  and  deep  bodies  of  water.      In  con- 
firmation of  this  view,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  the  intensity 
of  the  magnetic  elements  is  much  greater  over  the  land,  and 
especially  the  island  surfaces,  than  over  the  ocean  surface.* 

(d)  Explanation   of  the   Observations  at   Boston. — About 
the  year  1657,  the  needle  pointed  due  north  at  London,  as  we 
have  already  noticed.    But  in  what  direction  the  north  end  of 
the  line  of  no  declination  extended  from  London  at  that  time 
we  appear  to  have  no  record.      About  fifty-one  years  after- 
wards, however,  or  in  1708,  the  decimation  at  Boston  was  re- 
corded to  have  been  9°  west.     This  evidently  goes  to  show, 
according  to  this  theory,  that  in  1657,  or  shortly  thereafter, 
the  line  of  no  decimation  extended  almost  due  west  from 
Southern  Europe  across  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  passing  north- 
wards to  the  west  of  Boston  and  perhaps  recurving  again 

*See  paper  On  Local  Magnetic  Disturbances  in  Islands  Situated  Far 
from  a  Continent,  by  Staff-Commander  E.  W.  Creak,  R.  N.,  F  R.  S.,  Royal 
Society,  Jan.  28,  1886;  Nature,  33,  404. 


164]  TERRESTRIAL  ELECTRICITY  AND  MAGNETISM  301 

northeastwards  parallel  to  the  northeastern  coast.  There  is 
nothing  particularly  remarkable  in  this;  indeed  an  instance 
very  similar  to  it  occurs  in  the  Indian  Ocean  at  the  present 
day.  But  what  seems  strange  is  that,  for  the  next  hundred 
years,  or  up  to  1807,  the  western  declination  at  Boston  con- 
tinually decreased;  whereas,  according  to  analogy  and  theo- 
retical deduction,  it  ought  to  have  continually  increased. 

Of  this  curious  phenomenon,  the  following  explanation  is 
suggested  by  the  new  theory.  The  western  extension  from 
Europe  of  the  divergent  line  of  no  declination  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  17th  cetury,  took  place  probably  in  a  compara- 
tively short  time.  The  southern  end  of  the  line  yet,  and 
for  many  succeeding  years,  clung  to  southwestern  Europe 
and  Africa.  Now  this  diagonal  southeastern  extension  of  the 
line  would  have  a  tendency  to  reduce  the  eastern  declination 
and  increase  the  western  declination  upon  the  western  and 
eastern  sides,  respectively,  of  the  line.  Thus  we  observe 
that  at  both  London  and  Paris,  about  the  year  1580,  the  min- 
imum eastern  declination  was  only  about  half  what  the  min- 
imum western  declination  wsfe  about  240  years  later  at  the 
same  time  and  places,  while  evidently,  if  the  line  of  no  de- 
clination extended  north  and  south,  the  eastern  declination 
would  be  very  approximately  equal  to  the  western.  Similarly 
at  Boston  in  1708,  the  western  declination  was  greater  than 
it  would  be  if  the  magnetic  lines  were  parallel  to  the  geo- 
graphic meridian,  instead  of  being  at  a  comparatively  great 
angle  to  it.  But  a«bout  this  time  the  southern  end  of  the 
divergent  line  freed  itself  from  the  hold  of  the  Eastern  Con- 
tinent and  was  making  relatively  rapid  strides  across  the 
southern  Atlantic  (which  has  few  islands)  to  the  Western 
Continent.  This  rapid  western  movement  of  the  south  end 
of  the  line,  while  the  north  end  moved  at  a  much  slower  rate, 
tended  to  straighten  the  whole  line,  and  therefore  to  dimmish 
the  western  decimation  at  Boston  and  other  places  north  and 
east  of  the  line  in  its  anomalous  position,.  So  that  in  the 
period  from  1708  to  1807,  during  which  the  straightening  took 
place,  the  declination  was  reduced  at  these  places  nearly  3°, 
or  from  9°  west  to  6°  5'  west.  After  the  line  had  touched 


302  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [164 

South  America,  the  western  secular  movement  of  the  southern 
end  of  the  line  slackened  to  about  a  parity  with  the  rest,  the 
western  declination  again  increased  at  Boston  owing  to  the 
western  movement  of  the  whole  divergent  line,  and  so  con- 
tinues at  the  present  time. 

(e)  Explanation  of  the  Secular  Variation. — It  now  only 
remains  to  inquire  into  the  cause  of  this  continual  western 
movement  of  the  magnetic  meridians  and  poles.  And,  with- 
out further  preface,  the  simple  answer  is — The  eastern  rota- 
tion of  the  Earth  on  its  axis.  It  has  already  been  noticed 
that  the  connective  fluid  set  free  in  the  earth-currents  tended 
to  escape  from  the  plane  of  the  ecliptic  where  the  fluid  is 
most  dense;  and  this  movement  away  from  the  ecliptic  plane 
would,  owing  to  the  inclination  of  the  Earth's  axis,  be  to- 
wards some  point  of  the  polar  circles,  which  would  be  a  mag- 
netic pole.  The  electric  currents,  becoming  once  estab- 
lished in  certain  routes  in  the  Earth's  crust,  would  have  a 
tendency  to  follow  such  routes  more  readily  thereafter;*  so 
that,  although  the  rotation  of  the  Earth  carries  the  magnetic 
axis  out  of  its  natural  position  of  perpendicularity  to  the 
ecliptic  plane,  the  resistance  offered  to  this  wrenching  of  the 
axis  is  small  compared  to  that  offered  by  the  Earth's  crust 
to  the  continual  establishment  of  new  momentary  routes  per- 
pendicular to  the  ecliptic,  the  magnetic  axis  remains  prac- 
tically permanent  in  any  place,  and  it  is  thus  rotated  east- 
wards around  the  geographic  axis  once  in  every  twenty-four 
hours.  But  although  the  resistance  offered  to  the  wrench- 
ing of  the  magnetic  axis  out  of  its  vertical  position  with  re- 
spect to  the  ecliptic,  is  comparatively  small,  yet  it  is  con- 
stantly maintained;  and  although  its  effect  is  practically  in- 
appreciable in  any  one  rotation,  yet  in  the  course  of  a  year 
it  accumulates  so  as  to  become  quite  perceptible.  Taking 
the  magnetic  axis  (or  the  general  electric  earth-current)  in 
its  vertical  position  to  the  ecliptic  plane,  and  following  it 
eastwards  around  the  Earth's  axis  of  rotation,  we  observe 

*Even  in  air,  "where  once  a  spark  has  passed,  it  is  easier  for  a 
second  one  to  follow  on  the  same  track.  Probably  the  first  spark  pro- 
duces chemical  dissociations  in  its  path  which  do  not  instantly  pass 
away." — Prof.  S.  P.  Thompson's  Electricity  and  Magnetism,  p.  298. 


164]  TERRESTRIAL  ELECTRICITY  AND  MAGNETISM  303 

that,  during  the  first  half  of  the  rotation,  the  tendency  of  the 
former  would  be  to  return  westwards  to  the  vertical  position; 
but,  during  the  last  half  of  the  rotation,  the  tendency  of  the 
magnetic  axis  to  adjust  itself  to  the  vertical  would  urge  it 
eastwards,  as  the  nearest  way  to  that  position  then  lies  in 
that  direction  But  the  tendencies  of  the  magnetic  axis  in 
these  opposite  directions  do  not  balance  each  other  for  the 
reason  that  the  Earth's  rotation  favors  the  one  tendency  and 
opposes  the  other.  A  much  greater  and  more  effective  force 
or  pressure  is  manifestly  exerted  by  the  electric  fluid  when 
tending  to  regain  its  vertical  position  to  the  ecliptic  diagonal- 
ly backwards  against  the  Earth's  rotation,  than  when  tending 
to  regain  that  position  diagonally  backwards  with  the  Earth's 
rotation;  just  in  the  same  manner  that  a  much  greater  pres- 
sure is  exerted  by  the  current  of  a  river  upon  a  boat  moving 
diagonally  against  it  than  upon  a  boat  moving  diagonally  with 
it.  And  this  greater  pressure  of  the  electric  fluid  against 
the  Earth's  rotation  exists,  not  for  half  the  time  of  a  rotation 
only,  but  is  constantly  maintained  during  the  whole  rotation. 
For  the  currents  are  continually  flowing  northwards  upon  all 
sides  of  the  Earth,  and  therefore  there  is  a  balance  of  pres- 
sure exerted  against  the  Earth's  rotation  for  every  moment 
It  does  not  apply  here  that  the  electric  fluid  flowing  north- 
wards from  the  Equator  and  partaking  of  the  swifter  rota- 
tional motion  at  that  place,  would  tend  to  preserve  it  as  it 
moved  northwards  and  thus  tend  to  move  eastwards  instead 
of  westwards — first,  because  the  magnetic  fluid  is  supposed 
to  issue  chiefly  from  the  neighborhood  of  the  South  Mag- 
netic Pole,  rather  than  from  the  Equator;  and  second,  be- 
cause, as  will  shortly  be  found,  the  electric  flow  is  incom- 
parably more  rapid  than  the  Earth's  rotational  motion,.  The 
explanation  of  the  terrestrial  secular  variation,  then,  is  sim- 
ply that  this  continual  balance  of  pressure  of  the  magnetic 
earth-currents  westwards  over  the  Earth,  slowly  and  grad- 
ually changes  their  course  (and  therefore  that  of  the  mag- 
netic axis)  towards  this  direction.  Other  causes  may  con- 
tribute; but  evidently  this  is  the  primary  cause.  The  varia- 
tion does  not  take  place  at  an  equal  rate  all  over  the  Earth, 


304  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [164 

or  even  at  neighboring  localities;  but  lags  behind  in  some 
areas  and  shoots  forwards  with  comparative  rapidity  in 
others.  The  magnetic  meridians  and  equators  are  invar- 
iably distorted  and  twisted  intd  unsymmetrical  forms; — all 
of  which  clearly  refers  to  an  unevenly  resisting  crust  medium 
through  which  the  electric  currents  are  slowly  effecting  a 
change  of  their  courses. 

Indeed,  precisely  the  same  explanation  has  recently  been 
offered  by  no  less  an  authority  than  Prof.  Arthur  Schuster,  as 
follows  : 

"If  electricity  behaves  like  a  body  possessing  inertia,  the 
rotation  of  a  body  through  which  currents  pass  should  affect 
the  flow  of  these  currents  in  the  same  manner  as  the  earth's 
rotation  affects  the  direction  of  currents  of  air.  If  the 
earth's  magnetism  is  due  to  electric  currents,  it  is  interesting 
to  see  if  the  effects  of  inertia  can  explain  the  secular  varia- 
tion. The  investigation  shows  that  a  magnetic  precession 
of  the  character  of  the  secular  variation  would  be  produced, 
but  that  the  precession  would  be  very  much  slower  than  the 
variation  actually  observed,  .  .  .  The  calculated 
period  of  a  cycle  comes  out  as  7X1014  years.  If  the  currents 
are  confined  to  a  thin  slice  of  the  earth,  the  time  would  be 
reduced  to  about  14X106  years."* 

Prof.  Rucker  congratulated  the  author  of  the  foregoing 
for  his  attempt  to  solve  the  problem  of  terrestrial  magnetism. 
The  date  of  the  paper,  however,  was  nearly  ten  years  after 
the  same  explanation  had  been  given  by  the  present  writer. 
Moreover,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  such  an  immense  period  could 
have  been  obtained  for  the  secular  variation.  The  currents 
would  travel  in  the  Earth-crust  probably  to  a  depth  of  ten 
miles,  and  it  seems  not  very  easy  to  calculate  the  resistance 
of  the  unknown  strata  down  to  that  depth. 

(f)  Period  of  the  Secular  Variation. — According  to  the 
new  theory,  the  period  is  between  600  and  650  years.  At 
London  the  needle  pointed  due  north  in  1657,  and  about  1819 
it  was  at  its  maximum  westerly  declination  of  25°.  At  the 
first  of  these  dates,  the  city  was  just  in  the  line  of  diverg- 
ence, and  at  the  latter  date  it  would  be  half-way  between 
the  line  of  divergence  and  the  line  of  convergence,  which  last 

*Physical  Society,  London,   December   14,   1900;   Nature,   63,    194. 


165]  TERRESTRIAL  ELECTRICITY  AND  MAGNETISM  305 

was  approaching  from  the  east.  This  means  that  the  former 
line  had  traveled  westwards  from  the  city  about  one-fourth 
of  the  distance  around  the  Earth  between  these  dates;  for 
there  would  be  two  periods  of  western  magnets  and  two  per- 
iods of  eastern  magnets  for  every  complete  revolution;  one 
of  each  for  each  of  the  two  lines.  From  1657  to  1819  is  162 
years,  and  four  times  this  is  648  years.  The  corresponding 
dates  for  Paris  are  1663  and  1814,  giving  151  years  for  the 
quarter  period,  or  604  years  for  the  entire  period.  The  aver- 
age of  these  is  626  years,  and  the  half-period,  or  the  time  be- 
tween two  successive  north  magnets  at  one  place,  is  313  years; 
so  that  at  London  the  needle  will  be  due  to  point  north  again 
about  the  year  1970,  when  the  line  of  convergence  will  arrive 
westwards  to  that  city .  Of  course  the  resistance  would  vary 
at  different  places  and  with  different  circumstances;  and  the 
above  is  only  a  roughly  approximate  estimate  from  the  slender 
data  as  yet  available. 

165.  Corroborative  Evidences. — In  conclusion  of  this 
chapter,  it  may  be  well,  perhaps,  to  notice  a  few  observations 
out  of  hundreds  of  similar  ones  that  have  been  made  by  other 
inquirers  in  this  department  of  Nature,  which  seem  thor- 
oughly to  corroborate  the  general  theory  of  terrestrial  mag- 
netism here  offered. 

On  the  morning  of  March  30,  1886,  a  violent  earth-current 
storm  occurred  in  London,  stopping  all  telegraphic  work. 
During  the  same  time,  strong  earth-currents  were  reported  in 
the  Medeterranean,  Bombay,  and  Madras,  the  Madras  and 
Penang,  and  the  Java,  China,  and  Japan,  cables;  causing  all 
work  over  them  to  be  stopped.  In  the  evening,  brilliant 
aurorae  were  observed  in  Donegal  and  Kingstown  in  Ireland, 
at  Konigsberg  in  Prussia,  and  no  doubt  at  many  other  places 
from  which  no  reports  were  made .  *  This  evidently  goes 
to  show  that  there  is  an  intimate  connection  between  the 
earth-currents  and  the  aurorae,  as  the  theory  postulates. 

In  an  article  on  terrestrial  magnetism  in  the  9th  edition  of 
the  Encyclopedia  Britannica,  Prof.  Balfour  Stewart  endeavors 
to  show  two  things : 

*The  Electrician,  April  2.  and  August  6,  1886;  Nature,  34,  408. 


306  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [165 

"(1)  That  of  all  the  various  hpyotheses  which  have  been 
started  with  a  view  of  explaining  the  solar  diurnal  inequali- 
ties of  terrestrial  magnetism,  the  most  probable  is  that  which 
considers  these  inequalities  to  be  caused  by  electric  currents 
in  the  upper  regions  of  the  Earth's  atmosphere.  (2)  That 
in  the  neighborhood  of  the  North  Pole  (judging  from  observa- 
tions discussed  by  Sabine)  such  currents  have  in  all  prob- 
ability horizontal  components  flowing  in  from  all  sides  to- 
wards that  pole,  so  that  on  one  side  of  the  pole  this  component 
will  have  a  direction  the  reverse  to  that  which  it  has  on  the 
opposite  side  of  the  pole." 

This  is  just  what  the  new  theory  teaches,  except  that,  in- 
stead of  the  aerial  currents  flowing  in  from  all  sides  towards 
the  North  Magnetic  Pole,  they  radiate  in  all  directions  away 
from  it;  unless  obstructed  by  great  elevations  of  land,  or  by 
extreme  cold,  or  other  cause.  The  same  authority,  before 
th.e  London  Physical  Society,  April  10,  1886,  after  reviewing 
various  other  theories  and  hypotheses,  says: 

"We  seem,  therefore,  compelled  to  seek  for  the  cause  of  the 
variations  in  the  upper  atmospheric  regions,  and  we  cannot 
imagine  such  a  cause  to  exist  in  any  other  form  than  that  of 
a  system  of  electric  currents.  That  currents  may,  and  act- 
ually do,  exist  at  great  heights  is  shown  by  the  aurora,  which 
is  unquestionably  an  electric  current,  and  manifests  a  close 
connection  with  the  phenomena  of  terrestrial  magnetism."* 

M.  Faye,  before  the  Paris  Academy  of  Sciences,  April  19, 
1886, 

"deals  with  the  important  series  of  diagrams  appended  by  the 
Astronomer  Royal  to  the  volume  of  Greenwich  Observations 
for  1884,  embodying  the  diurnal  variations  in  horizontal  direc- 
tions and  intensity  of  the  terrestrial  magnetic  force  for  the 
thirty-six  years  ending  in  1876,  inclusive.  As  a  general  re- 
sult it  would  appear  that  the  magnetic  curves,  as  exhibited 
in  the  430  diagrams  of  Sir  G.  B.  Airy's  series,  contract  and 
expand  periodically  in  direct  agreement  with  the  greater  or 
less  prevalence  of  the  solar  spots,  and  also  with  great  regu- 
larity according  to  the  seasons,  the  summer  curves  being 
invariably  greater  than  those  of  winter." t 

This  is  exactly  in  accordance  with  what  the  new  theory 
has  already  predicated  in  the  greater  accumulation  of  con- 
nective substance  in  our  atmosphere  at  these  times.  (See 
Arts.  120,  124.) 

*Nature,  33,  620. 
tNature,  33,  622. 


165]  TERRESTRIAL  ELECTRICITY  AND  MAGNETISM  307 

Dr.  Weinstein,  before  the  Meteorological  Society  of  Berlin, 
March  2,  1886,  spoke  on  the  subject  of  earth-currents  as  fol- 
fows: 

"A  course  precisely  analogous  to  that  of  the  earth-current 
was  manifested  by  the  earth's  magnetism,  the  connection  of 
which  with  the  electricity  of  the  earth  attracted  attention 
from  the  very  beginning,  when  disturbances  made  themselves 
observable.  To  demonstrate  with  perfect  precision  the  co- 
incidence of  the  two  phenomena  it  was  necessary  to  take 
for  the  purpose  of  comparison,  not  a  single  magnetic  element, 
but  the  earth's  total  magnetism.  The  earth's  electricity  and 
the  earth's  magnetism  showed,  moreover,  in  their  regular 
daily  course,  their  affinity,  by  the  simultaneity  with  which 
their  disturbances  occurred.  This  simultaniety  was  so  pre- 
cise that  in  one  case  the  distance  between  Berlin  and  Wil- 
helmshaven  could  be  determined  from  the  time  when  the  dis- 
turbance of  the  earth's  current  made  itself  felt  in  Berlin,  and 
the  time  when  the  magnetic  disturbance  occurred  in  Wil- 
helmshaven.  This  simultaniety  of  disturbances  at  distant 
points  of  the  earth  pointed  to  a  cosmical  cause.  Thus,  in 
August,  last  year,  at  the  very  time  when  in  Paris  the  emerg- 
ence of  an  altogether  unusual  protuberance  was  observed,  a 
magnetic  disturbance  was  registered  in  Petersburg,  and  a 
disturbance  of  the  earth's  current  in  Berlin.  The  earth's 
current  and  the  earth's  magnetism  showed  further  in  com- 
mon the  periods  of  eleven  years  which  coincided  with  those 
of  the  solar  spots.  In  respect  of  the  earth's  current,  the 
period  could  not  indeed  be  demonstrated  to  a  certainty,  see- 
ing that  the  regular  observations  made  respecting  it  were  yet 
of  too  recent  date;  but  the  regular  course  of  the  oscillations 
warranted  the  conclusion  of  a  like  period  being  drawn. 
With  reference  to  the  question  which  phenomenon  was  the 
primary,  the  earth's  current  or  the  earth's  magnetism,  oppo- 
site views  were  entertained."* 

In  a  subsequent  communication  to  the  same  Society,  April 
6,  respecting  the  disturbances  which  had  occurred  January  9, 
and  March  30,  1886,  Dr.  Weinstein  states: 

"On  March  30,  the  disturbances  were  so  great  that  in  the 
course  of  the  forenoon  telegraphic  communication  in  Germany 
was  stopped.  Even  with  currents  of  60  Daniells  no  signs 
could  be  forwarded  by  the  telegraph  wires.  The  magnetic 
elements  in  Wilhelmshaven  showed  great  simultaneous  dis- 
turbances, and  from  the  direction  of  these  magnetic  disturb- 
ances it  was  inferred  that  the  disturbance  of  the  earth's  elec- 
tricity were  the  primary,  the  oscillations  of  the  earth's  mag- 
netism the  secondary. "f 

*Nature,  33,   624. 
tNature,  34,   24. 


308  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [165 

This  precisely  agrees  with  the  theory;  the  incoming  dis- 
turbing wave  of  connective  fluid  first  appearing  in  the  elec- 
tric currents  of  the  crust,  and  subsequently  affecting  the  mag- 
netic elements,  just  as  theoretically  deduced. 

From  autographic  records  of  the  magnetic  storms  of  1880, 
August  11-14,  at  Pavlosk,  Kew,  Zikawei,  and  Melbourne,  Prof. 
H.  Wild  concludes  that 

"the  disturbance  of  all  three  elements,  decimation  and  hori- 
zontal and  vertical  intensity,  began  and  ended  simultaneously. 
.  .  .  The  magnitude  of  the  perturbation  for  each  element, 
especially  the  intensity,  and  for  each  day,  shows  a  diurnal 
period  closely  coinciding  with  normal  daily  variations." 

The  same  scientist,  from  magnetograph  records  of  the 
magnetic  weather  of  January  30-February  1,  1881,  at  eleven 
places  in  America,  Europe,  China,  India,  and  Australia,  finds 
that 

"the  perturbations  began  everywhere  simultaneously,  so  far 
as  the  time  scales  enabled  the  moments  to  be  determined. 
.  .  .  The  times  of  occurrence  of  maxima  and  minima,  and  the 
amplitudes,  especially  of  the  variations  in  declination,  corres- 
pond very  closely  to  the  distance  of  the  stations  from  the 
auroral  circle  surrounding  the  north  magnetic  pole,  as  lately 
defined  by  Baron  Nordenskiold."* 

Also  from  observations  of  earth-currents  made  upon  buried 
telegraph  cables  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  observatory  of 
Pavlosk  up  to  September  1883,  he  draws  the  following  con- 
clusions : 

"The  earth-currents  appear  not  like  currents  of  uniform 
intensity,  but  as  alternating  stronger  and  weaker  currents. 

"Only  by  taking  the  mean  of  the  twenty-four  term  days 
during  the  year  do  we  find  traces  of  slight  diurnal  change 
whose  amplitude  corresponds  nearly  to  0.0008  volt.  The 
diurnal  change  of  the  earth  current  is  therefore  not  the  cause 
of  the  diurnal  change  in  the  magnetic  elements. 

"As  soon  as  the  earth  currents  in  both  lines  become  strong, 
the  magnetic  instruments  deviate  from  their  ordinary  posi- 
tions, and  these  perturbations  increase  with  the  strength  of 
the  earth  currents,  but  not  in  any  regular  proportion. 

"The  changes  in  the  south-to-north  line  preceded  by  about 
five  minutes  the  changes  in  variation  of  declination,  so  that 

*Prof.  Cleveland  Abbe,  An  Account  of  Progress  in  Meteorology  in 
1883,  pp.  66-68. 


1651  TERRESTRIAL  ELECTRICITY  AND  MAGNETISM  309 

the  earth  currents  would  appear  as  the  primary  cause.  He 
concludes  that  the  earth  currents  are  the  primary  cause  of 
many  perturbations,  but  not  the  cause  of  the  periodic  varia- 
tions in  the  magnetic  elements."* 

Now  all  this  is  very  obviously  in  perfect  harmony  with  the 
connective  theory.  The  simultaneity  of  the  disturbances  of 
the  magnetic  elements  over  the  whole  Earth  points  unmistak- 
ably to  a  cosmical  cause  of  them.  The  small  time-interval 
of  five  minutes  between  the  appearance  of  the  disturbance 
in  the  earth-current  at  Pavlosk  and  its  reappearance  in  the 
aerial  currents  as  affecting  the  magnetic  needle,  indicates  the 
extreme  velocity  of  the  terrestrial  electric  currnts;  and  the 
correspondence  of  the  times  of  maxima  and  minima  of  the 
variation  of  the  magnetic  elements  at  various  places  to  the 
distances  of  these  respectively  from  the  north  auroral  circle,- 
indicates  clearly  the  course  which  the  electric  currents  take 
and  their  mode  of  distribution.  We  read  also  that  the  mag- 
nitude of  the  magnetic  perturbation  shows  a  diurnal  period 
coinciding  with  the  diurnal  barometric  variations.  This 
shows  that  a  proprtionately  great  amount  of  the  distributing 
fluid  (as  well  as  of  the  ordinary  currents)  appearing  at  the 
polar  regions  is  gathered  into  the  aerial  tides  theoretically 
shown  to  account  for  the  diurnal  variations.  And  still  an- 
other discovery  by  Prof.  Wild  that  furnishes  a  very  strong 
confirmation  of  the  theory,  is  that  there  is  no  appreciable 
variation  of  the  earth-currents  corresponding  to  the  diurnal 
or  other  periodic  changes  in  the  magnetic  elements.  This 
certainly  goes  far  to  prove  that  the  atmospheric  tides  caused 
upon  the  Earth  by  the  solar  connexion  is  the  sole  cause  of 
these  changes,  as  the  theory  predicates.  That  there  is  ap- 
parently no  regular  proportion  between  the  irregular  per- 
turbations of  the  earth-currents  and  the  immediately  follow- 
ing disturbances  of  the  magnetic  elements,  may  very  reason- 
ably arise  from  the  infinitesimalness  of  the  observed  portions, 
of  these  currents,  the  great  bulk  of  which  is  probably  deep- 
seated  in  the  Earth's  crust. 

It  may  be  added  here  that,  in  perfect  harmony  with  the 

*Prof.  Cleveland  Abbe,  Account  of  Progress  in  Meteorology  in  the 
Year  1884,  pp.  111-112. 


310  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [165 

new  theory,  the  intensity  of  the  disturbances  of  the  magnetic 
elements,  or  of  the  atmospheric  electricity,  varies  directly 
with  the  magnetic  latitude;  being 'most  intense  at  the  "auroral 
circle"  surrounding  the  Magnetic  Pole.*  This  is  the  strong- 
est possible  corroboration,  not  only  of  the  solar  origin  of  these 
phenomena,  but  also  of  the  connective-bond  theory  of  their 
transmission  to  us  from  the  Sun;  for  the  solar  disturbances 
would  very  obviously  be  best  transmitted  when  situated  near 
tlie  center  of  the  Earth-Sun  connective  bond  than  when  near 
its  edges;  and  not  at  all  when  on  the  other  side  of  the  Sun. 
(See  Art.  101) . 

There  appears  to  be  a  strong  connection  too  between  the 
electric  currents,  cirrus  clouds,  and  precipitation.  Change 
'of  weather  almost  invariably  accompanies  unusually  brilliant 
aurorae.  The  electric  tension  of  the  air  is  also  profoundly 
modified  by  precipitation ;  and  lightning  seldom  occurs  except 
during,  or  in  connection  with,  rain.  At  this  stage  of  the 
inquiry,  it  is  not  easy  to  determine  whether  the  electric  fluid 
itself  is  directly  converted  into  the  precipitated  water,  or 
water  vapor,  or  merely  accompanies  the  fluid  which,  in  the 
lightning  flash,  is  so  converted.  That  the  lightning  flash  is 
a  manifestation  of  connective  substance  in  some  form  or 
transformation,  and  even  disturbs  the  magnetic  needle,  there 
is,  however,  no  doubt.  The  following  suggestive  extract  re- 
garding the  connection  of  thunderstorms,  aurorae,  and  solar 
disturbances  may  fitly  close  this  chapter: 

"As  a  result  of  the  extended  series  of  observations  de- 
scribed, it  has  been  found  that  in  general  whenever  groups 
of  faculae,  with  or  without  dark  spots,  are  appearing  by 
rotation  or  are  bursting  forth  upon  the  earthward  side  of 
the  sun,  there  is  an  immediate  increase  of  thunderstorms 
in  the  lower  latitudes,  and  probably  auroras  in  the  higher 
latitudes.  If,  however,  the  aurora  becomes  visible  near  the 
equator  at  such  times,  there  is  an  immediate,  though,  per- 
haps, themporary  decrease  in  thunderstorms,  as  though  the 
aurora  had  taken  their  place.  In  short,  the  aurora  and 

*Nature,  90,  37;  33,  614-5.  Also,  according  to  the  investigations  of 
Mr.  J.  A.  Brown,  Mr.  Arthur  Harvey,  Mr.  E.  W.  Maunder,  and  the  Ger- 
man magnetician,  Dr.  Schmidt,  the  terrestrial  magnetic  variations  have 
also  a  period  corresponding  to  that  of  the  Sun's  rotation;  27%  days  by 
the  three  first  mentoned  and  about  30  days  by  Dr.  Schmidt.  See  Dr.  C. 
Chree,  Nature,  83,  354-5-6;  91,  495;  97,  511. 


165]  TERRESTRIAL  ELECTRICITY  AND  MAGNETISM  311 

thunderstorms  appear  to  have  a  common  origin,  and  in  cer- 
tain localities,  at  least,  a  reciprocal  relation  to  each  other. 

"The  relation  between  the  various  phenomena  is  such, 
that  if  an  increase  of  thunderstorms  or  auroras  is  noted, 
faculae  coming  into  view  by  rotation  or  bursting  forth  else- 
where upon  the  sun  may  be  looked  for  with  confidence.  On 
the  other  hand  the  appearance  upon  the  sun  of  bright  fac- 
ulae betokens  an  immediate  increase  in  the  electrical  phe- 
nomena attending  the  storms  which  may  be  prevailing  at 
the  time  anywhere  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  unless  the  au- 
rora should  intervene,  as  has  already  been  noted. 

"In  general  the  disturbed  solar  and  terrestrial  conditions, 
increase  or  diminish  in  like  ratio.  The  curious  fact  has  been 
noted,  however,  that  a  single  disturbance  occupying  the  sun's 
disc  alone  seems  to  have  a  more  marked  effect  than  a  suc- 
cession of  such  disturbances,  as  though  variability  of  ten- 
sion were  most  concerned  in  the  production  of  the  phenomena 
in  question."* 

*M.  A.  Veeder,  The  Electrical  World,  Vol.  10,  No.  9 ;  Monthly  Weath- 
er Review  (of  the  U.  S.  Signal  Service),  July,  1887,  p.  206.  An  article 
on  the  same  subject  by  Henry  C.  Maine  also  appeared  in  Frank  Leslie* a 
Illustrated  Newspaper  of  Aug.  31.  1889. 


CHAPTER  XIII 


GEOLOGICAL  CLIMATIC  CHANGES 


From  the  point  of  view  of  the  physicist,  a  theory  of 
matter  is  a  policy  rather  than  a  creed;  its  object  is  to  con- 
nect or  coordinate  apparently  diverse  phenomena,  and  above 
all  to  suggest,  stimulate,  and  experiment.  It  ought  to  fur- 
nish a  compass  which,  if  followed,  will  lead  the  observer 
further  arid  further  into  previously  unexplored  regions. 
Whether  these  regions  will  be  barren  or  fertile,  experience 
alone  will  decide;  but  at  any  rate  one  who  is  guided  in  this 
way  will  travel  onward  in  a  definite  direction,  and  will  not 
wander  aimlessly  to  and  fro. — PROF.  J.  J.  THOMSON. 

In  Middle  and  Upper  Eocene  times,  great  palms  and  other 
plants  flourished  in  Europe  whose  nearest  relatives  now  ex- 
ist in  tropical  Africa,  India,  and  Australia.  The  most  north- 
ern point  which  has  plant  impressions  is  Grinnell  Land,  N. 
A.,  81°  45'  N.  Its  present  mean  temperature  is  4°  F.  ( — 20° 
C . ) .  The  plants  evidenced  by  its  impressions  required  a 
mean  annual  temperature  of  46°  F.  A  still  warmer  climate 
is  indicated  by  the  fossil  flora  of  Greenland  and  Spitzbergen, 
N.  Siberia,  and  Alaska:  indicating  a  difference  of  about  49°F. 
between  those  times  and  the  present  at  these  places.  This 
cannot  be  accounted  for  by  distribution  of  land  or  of  marine 
currents.  Apparently  the  only  possible  explanation  is  a  dis- 
placement of  the  pole  coupled  with  an  actually  warmer  cli- 
mate in  Tertiary  times. 

In  the  Himalaya  and  the  Karakorum  were  enormous  glac- 
iers as  well  as  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  equator  in  S. 
America.  It  was  long  doubtful  whether  the  glaciation  of 
the  northern  and  southern  hemispheres  took  place  simulta- 
neously; but  there  is  no  longer  any  doubt  that  such  was 
really  the  case. 

With  our  present  knowledge,  any  explanation  is  quite 
impossible.  We  must  content  ourselves  with  recognizing 
that  the  cooling  was  simultaneous,  and,  as  far  as  research 
has  yet  gone,  extended  over  the  whole  globe.  It  is  then 
obviously  impossible  to  attribute  it  to  a  displacement  of  the 
pole,  for  in  that  case  a  part  of  the  earth  must  have  expe- 
rienced an  increase  of  temperature;  and,  in  addition  to  this, 
we  certainly  cannot  suppose  any  considerable  change  in  the 
position  of  the  pole  within  so  comparatively  short  an  interval 
as  separates  us  from  the  Glacial  epoch.  The  uniform  ex- 
tension of  the  phenomena  excludes  all  these  attempted  ex- 


166]  GEOLOGICAL  CLIMATIC  CHANGES  313 

planations  which  appeal  to  geological  or  geographical  changes 
of  the  earth's  surface,  a  different  distribution  of  land  and 
sea,  changes  in  the  ocean  currents,  etc.,  and  all  point  to  some 
agency,  external  to  the  earth,  and  therefore  acting  on  it  as 
a  whole.  . 

If  we  follow  the  march  of  these  vicissitudes  of  temper- 
ature, evidently  determined  by  some  cosmical  agency,  we 
find  at  the  beginning  of  Tertiary  times  a  moderately  warm 
climate;  then  a  rise  during'  the  Eocene,  and  then  a  gradual 
cooling,  interrupted  possibly  by  some  oscillations,  down  to 
a  degree  nearly  corresponding  to  that  now  prevailing,  at 
the  beginning  of  the  Pleistocene  epoch.  Then  the  cooling 
continued  below  the  present  temperature,  to  a  minimum  at 
the  time  of  the  greatest  glaciation  of  the  land;  then  a  re- 
warming  in  the  interglacial  period  nearly  up  to  the  present 
temperature;  after  which  the  cold  and  glaciation  regained 
the  upper  hand,  finally  to  give  way  to  the  present  conditions, 
which  are  about  midway  between  the  greatest  warmth  of  the 
Tertiary  age  and  the  greatest  cold  of  the  Pleistocene.  . 

Just  as  little  can  we  determine  at  present  by  what  agency 
all  these  vicissitudes  are  brought  about;  most  plausible  and 
simple  would  it  certainly  be  were  the  sun  a  variable  star 
that  at  different  periods  emits  different  quantities  of  heat; 
but  for  this  or  any  other  assumption  there  is  no  proof  forth- 
coming. This  enigma,  like  so  many  others,  will  some  day 
be  solved  by  man's  searching  intelligence,  but,  like  all  other 
acquisitions  of  science,  this  goal  can  be  won  by  assiduous 
and  patient  labor.  Haply  the  triumph  may  not  be  for  our 
generation;  but  what  we  may  certainly  accomplish  is  to  pre- 
pare the  way  for  it,  by  an  accurate  and  critical  collection  of 
the  facts.— DR.  M.  NEUMAYR.* 

166.  Geological  Periods. — Having  now  examined  the  gen- 
eral phenomena  of  cosmical  evolution  and  gravitation,  plan- 
etary light  and  heat,  aerial  and  oceanic  tides,  and  terrestrial 
magnetism,  in  their  relation  to  the  new  theory,  and  invariably 
finding  apparently  perfect  and  unquestionable  harmony  of 
that  theory  with  the  f^cts — let  us  now  turn  into  a  different 
department  of  scientific  inquiry  and  see  if  the  same  harmony 
is  manifested  there  also.  Having  tested  the  theory  by  the 
various  manifestations  above  and  upon  the  Earth's  surface, 
let  us  now  test  it  by  the  manifestations  beneath  the  Earth's 
surface,  or  the  testimony  of  the  Earth's  crust  itself.  This 
crust  upon  which  we  temporarily  have  our  being,  has  cer- 
tainly been  subjected  to  vast  changes  both  of  form  and  sur- 

*Lecture  before  the  Society  for  Dissemination  of  Natural  Science, 
Vienna,  Jan.  2,  1889. 


314  THE   CONNECTIVE   THEORY  [167 

rounding  conditions;  and,  if  the  new  theory  be  in  the  main 
the  true  one,  it  will  even  yet  be  subjected  to  changes  com- 
pared with  which  the  past  changes,  the  evidence  of  which 
the  crust  affords,  are  utterly  insignificant.  However,  it  is 
the  record  of  these  past  changes  that  are  here  to  be  ex- 
amined, and  though  perhaps  they  are  relatively  insignifi- 
cant, we  shall  nevertheless  find  them  vast  enough  for  the  con- 
sideration of  our  puny  faculties. 

The  time  since  the  appearance  of  the  human  race  upon 
the  Earth  is  apparently  but  a  moment  of  the  Earth's  his- 
tory. There  is  some  evidence  that  man  existed  shortly  prior 
to  the  great  Ice  Age,  but  the  highest  scientific  authorities 
are  of  the  opinion  that  the  earliest  traces  of  Paleolithic  man 
is  to  be  found  in  river  drifts  deposited  after  the  vast  glaciers 
began  to  melt  away.  Now  the  duration  of  the  great  Ice  Age 
is  said  to  be  double  that  of  the  period  since,  and  yet  the  Ice 
Age  and  the  period  since  together  are  supposed  to  be,  on 
the  most  probable  basis,  but  a  fraction  of  one  per  cent,  of 
the  period  since  the  formation  of  the  present  crust  upon  the 
Earth. 

167.  The  Age  of  Ice. — For  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
years,  then,  probably  before  the  first  appearance  of  man, 
vast  sheets  of  ice  covered  the  temperate  regions  which  we 
now  inhabit,  and  perpetual  winter  reigned  half  way  to  the 
Equator.  But  still  prior  to  this,  for  a  far  longer  period,  the 
climate  of  the  same  regions  was  extremely  torrid,  and  per- 
petual summer  reigned  as  far  north  as  the  Pole.  Of  these 
vast  changes  of  the  Earth's  climate  in  the  past,  there  is  no 
question  whatever  among  scientific  men.  The  evidence  is 
abundant  and  unmistakable,  and  carries  conviction  at  once 
to  the  mind  of  the  student  of  Nature.  But  if  the  scientist 
be  asked  how  these  changes  of  climate  came  about,  practically 
no  answer  is  received.  He  does  not  know.  He  has,  or 
rather  he  had,  theories  regarding  these  climatic  changes,  but 
they  are  all  untenable,  and  so  obviously  so  that  they  are 
about  all  practically  rejected  and  laid  aside.  The  late  Mr. 
Searles  V.  Wood,  in  a  summary  of  the  possible  causes  of  the 
succession  of  cold  and  warm  climates,  enumerates  no  less 


168]  GEOLOGICAL  CLIMATIC  CHANGES  315 

than  seven  different  theories,  which  have  met  with  more  or 
less  acceptance.  And  Sir  J.  William  Dawson,  in  his  inaugural 
address  at  the  fifty-sixth  annual  meeting  of  the  British  Asso- 
ciation, justly  exclaims  that  "nearly  every  cause  available  in 
the  heavens  and  in  the  earth  have  been  invoked  to  account  for 
these  astounding  facts." 

The  theory  of  Dr.  James  Croll,  as  elaborated  in  his  works 
"Climate  and  Time,"  "Climate  and  Cosmology,"  etc.,  was  prob- 
ably the  ablest  as  well  as  the  most  widely  accepted.  But 
after  a  critical  examination  of  it  by  Dr.  Woeikof,*  not  to 
mention  former  criticisms  of  it  by  Simon  Newcomb  and 
others,  there  remains  little  else  than  a  series  of  erroneous 
assumptions.  In  the  words  of  J.  Norman  Lockyer — 

"His  whole  system  of  estimating  temperature  breaks  down 
when  seriously  tested,  the  errors  being  enormous,  in  some 
cases  upwards  of  100°  F.,  or  greater  than  the  difference  of 
annual  temperature  between  the  equator  and  the  North  Pole. 
His  hypotheses,  although  brilliant  and  fascinating,  can  not 
be  accepted,  the  main  points  on  which  they  rest  being  op- 
posed to  the  most  certain  teachings  of  meteorology,  and  the 
whole  fabric,  in  its  explanation  of  glaciation  and  geological 
climates  generally,  being  entirely  fallacious."* 

168.  The  Causes  of  the  Climatic  Changes. — By  the  new 
theory,  however,  the  explanation  is  simple  and  obvious  at  a 
glance.  As  already  intimated  some  pages  back,  the  Earth, 
after  its  transformation  from  the  solar  ring  into  the  spherical 
form,  at  once  began  to  contract  its  volume  and  form  a  crust 
upon  itself,  in  all  respects  similar  to  the  solar  crust  out  of 
which  it  originated;  and  also,  at  the  same  time,  a  similar 
process  took  place  upon  the  Sun.  It  appears  that  this  gener- 
ative process  upon  the  Sun  in  this  case  required  less  time 
than  it  did  upon  the  Earth.  In  other  words,  the  solar  crust 
first  matured  and  brought  forth  the  planet  Venus,  before  the 
Earth  had  been  delivered  of  its  satellite.  The  evidence 
of  this  solar  priority  lies  in  the  fact  that  in  the  same  period 
during  which  the  Earth  gave  birth  to  only  one  body,  the 
Moon,  the  Sun  gave  birth  to  two  bodies,  Venus  and  Mercury. 

*  American  Journal  of  Science  and  Art,   March   1886. 
*Nature,  34,  40. 


316  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [168 

A  partial  reason  at  least  for  this  solar  priority  would  be  that 
the  generative  process  upon  the  Sun  was  supposably  some- 
what advanced  while  the  Earth-ring  was  yet  extending  out- 
wards from  its  parent,  and  preparing  itself  for  its  aggrega- 
tion into  the  planetary  form.  But  no  doubt  the  chief  reason 
of  the  priority  would  be  the  greater  centrifugal  tendency 
of  the  Sun's  equatorial  surface.  In  any  event,  it  appears 
tolerably  plain  from  the  new  theory  that,  after  the  Earth,  the 
next  in  order  of  generatioin  of  the  three  bodies  subsequently 
begotten  was  Venus,  then  the  Moon,  and  lastly  Mercury. 

Now  it  is  a  corollary  reasonably  following  from  this  the- 
ory, and  is  practically  self-evident,  that  when  the  Sun's  sur- 
face cools  and  contracts  into  a  solid  crust,  a  much  smaller 
solar  heat  will  be  distributed  outwards  to  the  planets  of  the 
Solar  System,  than  when  the  Sun's  crust  is  in  a  gaseous  form. 
From  these  premises  it  follows  that,  at  the  birth  of  the 
Moon,  the  Sun  was  tolerably  well  advanced  upon  Mercury. 
By  the  time  the  present  crust  of  the  Earth  was  sufficiently 
formed  to  support  vegetable  life,  the  solar  crust  would  have 
been  in  a  still  more  advanced  stage,  and  so  would  furnish 
less  heat  to  the  Earth  than  it  at  present  receives.  Perhaps 
this  consideration  does  not  with  equal  probability  apply  to 
the  Sun's  light;  which,  for  aught  that  we  can  assign  to  the 
contrary,  may  have  remained  practically  undiminished.  At 
this  time  of  comparative  solar  frigidity,  the  light  and  possibly 
the  heat  of  the  Moon,  owing  to  its  recent  formation,  might 
also  be  relatively  great.  But  the  chief  source  of  heat,  in  all 
probability,  would  be  the  Earth  itself.  It  is  certain  that  at 
this  period  the  Earth-crust  would  be  generously  warmed  over 
its  whole  extent  by  the  Earth's  internal  heat;  and  with  light 
either  from  the  Sun  or  the  Moon,  or  from  both,  the  Earth's 
surface  would  have  been  one  great  hot-bed,  and  the  favorable 
condition  for  vegetable  growth  would  be  unsurpassed.  This 
would  be  the  Carboniferous  Era  upon  the  Earth,  in  which 
the  vast  coal  beds  were  deposited;  the  comparative  thinness 
of  the  crust  affording  relatively  frequent  opportunities  for  its 
upheaval  or  subsidence.  And  at  the  same  time  the  tepid  wa- 
ters would  support  more  gigantic  and  a  greater  number  of 


1691  GEOLOGICAL  CLIMATIC  CHANGES  317 

animals  than  with  either  a  greater  or  less  amount  of  heat. 

But  the  Earth-heat  would  gradually  diminish  at  the  sur- 
face. After  hundreds  of  thousands  of  years,  the  temperature 
would  fall  upon  the  land  and  in  the  water;  the  Sun  would 
afford  a  minimum  of  heat;  the  climate  would  gradually  be- 
come frigid  the  water  would  congeal  into  snow  and  ice;  and 
excepting  probably  a  strip  bordering  on  either  side  of  the 
Equator,  preserved  by  the  remnants  of  solar  heat,  the  whole 
Earth  would  be  one  vast  sheet  of  glaciers  and  snow. 

But  another  change  was  beginning  to  daw  upon  our  planet. 
When  its  internal  heat  had  become  greatly  reduced  at  the 
surface,  and  the  Sun  also  had  cooled  by  encrustation  so  as 
to  furnish  but  a  minimum  quantity,  the  solar  crust  began  to 
part  and  the  gaseous  interior  would  gradually  be  exposed  to 
view;  affording  to  our  world  once  more  the  life-restoring 
heat.  This  process  of  crust  separation  would  continue  and 
the  heat  would  increase  in  intensity  until  the  ring  wholly 
separated  from  the  body  of  the  Sun.  This  would  be  the  sec- 
ond or  post-glacial  tropical  period.  After  a  time  the  first 
intensity  of  the  solar  heat  would  wear  away,  and  this  gradual 
diminution  would  have  continued  down  to  the  present  day; 
in  which,  according  to  the  new  theory,  the  solar  surface  is 
just  in  the  inceptive  stage  of  its  solidification  in  the  process 
of  generating  another  planet. 

By  the  new  theory,  then,  the  sequence  of  geological  cli- 
mates, so  far  as  the  present  Earth-crust  is  concerned,  is  as 
follows:  First,  very  hot,  corresponding  to  the  original  heat 
of  our  globe  the  gradual  tempering  of  which  produced  the 
magnificant  flora  and  the  gigantic  fauna  of  the  Coal  Meas- 
ures; second,  very  cold,  corresponding  to  the  cooling  and  more 
advanced  solidification  of  the  Earth's,  the  Moon's,  and  the 
Sun's,  surface;  third,  very  warm,  corresponding  to  the  sep- 
aration of  the  Sun's  solidified  crust;  and  fourth,  a  gradual 
reduction  of  the  heat  of  this  last  period  down  to  the  present 
day.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  state  that  this  sequence  is 
almost  precisely  similar  to  that  deduced  by  geologists  from 
the  evidence  of  the  crust  itself. 

169.     The  Supposed  Subdivisions  of  the  Ice  Age. — There 


318  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [169 

is,  indeed,  one  apparent  discrepancy;  which,  however,  may 
quite  possibly  be  owing  to  the  extraordinary  and .  incorrect 
causes  which  the  confusion  of  previous  theories  compelled 
scientists  to  assign  for  the  facts.  The  view  involving  this 
apparent  discrepancy  is  that,  very  generally  received  among 
geologists,  which  regards  the  great  Ice  Age  as  divided  into 
several  portions,  separated  by  interglacial  periods.  This 
view,  if  true,  would  not  be  absolutely  inconsistent  with  the 
theory  here  advanced,  as  the  interruption  by  various  causes 
of  the  cooling  process  upon  the  Sun  can  by  no  means  be  said 
to  be  impossible.  But  the  great  probability  appears  to  be 
that  this  view  is  erroneous.  Leaving  out  of  consideration  the 
astronomical  grounds  upon  which  Dr.  Croll  and  others  based 
the  subdivisions  of  the  Ice  Age,  as  having  been  quite  suf- 
ficiently criticised  by  other  inquirers,  one  ground,  of  a  very 
different  character,  for  a  belief  in  such  subdivision  may  be 
noticed. 

Archibald  Geikie,  in  his  "Geological  Sketches,"  describes 
what  he  thinks  is  probably  the  oldest  portion  of  land  surface 
on  our  globe,  in  the  northwest  part  of  Scotland.  A  some- 
what extensive  platform  of  old  gneiss  had  first  been 

"buried  under  several  thousand  feet  of  red  sandstone. 
The  area  was  then  further  submerged  until  the  vast  pile  of 
sediment  was  deposited  out  of  which  the  Highlands  had 
been  formed,  that  these  sedimentary  accumulations — how 
many  thousand  feet  thick  we  cannot  yet  tell — were  subse- 
quently over  the  Highland  area  crumpled  and  metamorphosed 
into  crystalline  schists,  and  that  towards  the  west  the  ancient 
platform  of  gneiss  was  once  more  ridged  up  and  gradually 
bared  of  its  superincumbent  load  of  rock,  until  now  at  length 
some  portions  of  it  have  been  once  more  laid  open  to  the  air." 

What  is  strange  about  the  old  gneiss  platform  thus  laid 
bare  is  the  peculiar  bossy,  hummocky  appearance  which  it 
presents,  which  is  not  presented  by  the  later  formations  re- 
maining above  it,  and  which,  "if  they  were  found  in  a  recent 
formation,  would  without  hesitation  be  ascribed  to  land  ice." 
The  overlying  formations  are  marked  by  parallel  striations 
and  bands  of  rocky  terrace,  but  are  far  from  exhibiting  such 
energy  of  glacial  action  as  in  the  older  gneiss.  Moreover 
the  peculiar  smooth,  bossy  character  of  the  latter  can  be 


169]  GEOLOGICAL  CLIMATIC  CHANGES  319 

traced  under  the  recent  formations  and  under  patches  of 
breccia  or  moraine  which  have  been  left  standing  by  recent 
erosions.  From  this  the  inference  clearly  follows  that  an 
earlier  period  of  glaciation  existed,  which  was  separated  from 
the  recent  period  of  glaciation  by  the  immense  interval  of 
time  required  for  the  deposition  of  the  red  sandstone  and 
overlying  schists,  and  their  submergence,  crystallization  and 
subsequent  elevation. 

Regarding  this  inference  as  true,  the  new  theory  would 
still  regard  the  two  periods,  however  distant,  as  the  inceptive 
and  final  stages  of  one  grand  period  of  glaciation.  Accord- 
ing to  this  view,  the  old  gneiss  was,  in  the  first  place,  sub- 
jected to  the  action  if  the  glaciers  during  a  comparatively 
great  time  in  the  beginning  of  the  Ice  Age;  that  then  it  was 
submerged,  water  intervening  between  it  and  the  ice,  and 
had  deposited  upon  it  the  sandstone  and  schists  by  the  action 
of  the  glaciers  and  the  overlying  waters;  that  subsequently, 
with  its  overlying  burden  it  was  upheaved  and  again  sub- 
jected to  the  action  of  the  uninterrupted,  but  diminished  ice, 
suffering  denudation  of  its  overlying  deposits  in  the  closing 
and  more  moderate  period  of  the  Ice  Age,  and  by  continued 
elevation  and  denudation,  itself  a  second  time  polished  and 
striated  by  ice-action. 

There  is  nothing  certainly  known  regarding  these  alleged 
interglacial  periods.  Geologists  are  by  no  means  agreed 
either  upon  their  existence  or  their  number. 

''Opinions  differ  as  to  the  number  of  glacial  and  interglac- 
ial epochs,  many  holding  that  we  have  evidence  of  only  two 
cold  stages,  and  one  general  interglacial  stage.  .... 
While  some  observers  are  of  opinion  that  there  are  only  two 
epochs  of  general  glaciation,  others,  as  for  example,  M.  Tar- 
dy, find  what  they  consider  to  be  evidence  of  several  such 
epochs.  Others,  again,  as  M.  Falsan,  do  not  believe  in  the 
existence  of  interglacial  stages,  although  they  readily  admit 
that  there  were  great  advances  and  retreats  of  the  ice  during 
the  glacial  period."* 

This  last,  in  which  Dr.  N.  O.  Hoist  also  agrees,  t  is  pre- 

*Prof.  James  Geike,  Presidental  Address  to  the  Geological  Section, 
British  Association,  1889 ;  Nature,  40,  491. 

tNature,  97,  247. 


320  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [169 

cisely  the  view  here  entertained,  except  that,  instead  of  ad- 
vances and  retreats  of  the  ice,  upheavals  and  subsidences, 
various  in  number  in  various  places,  are  substituted. 


CHAPTER  XIV 


COSMICAL  EVOLUTION  IN  THE  FUTURE 


Like  the  wife  of  Ulysses,  who  undid  at  night  what  her 
industrious  fingers  had  wrought  by  day,  Nature  amuses  her- 
self with  an  eternal  building  up  and  destroying,  the  beginning 
of  which  is  like  its  end  and  the  end  like  the  beginning. 
Thence,  as  Spiller  thinks,  by  a  "continual  perfecting  in  the 
aggregation  of  atoms  (as  actually  occurs  on  the  earth)  there 
might  possibly  arise  an  improvement  in  organization  and  in 
the  conditions  of  life"  which  would  enable  us  to  imagine  that 
a  gradual  progression  from  the  imperfect  to  the  perfect  and 
from  the  lowlier  to  the  higher  .  .  .  would  take  place 
within  definite  periods  in  the  never-ending  regions  of  the 
universe. — BUCHNER. 

And  what  is  this  world  in  the  immensity  which  teems 
with  them,  and  what  are  we  who  occupy  it?  The  universe 
at  large  would  suffer  as  little  in  its  splendour  and  variety  by 
the  destruction  of  our  planet,  as  the  verdure  and  sublime 
magnitude  of  a  forest  would  suffer  by  the  fall  of  a  single 
leaf.  The  leaf  quivers  on  the  branch  which  supports  it.  It 
lies  at  the  mercy  of  the  slightest  accident.  A  breath  of  wind 
tears  it  from  its  parent  stem,  and  it  lights  on  the  stream  of 
water  which  falls  underneath.  In  a  moment  of  time  an  oc- 
currence so  insignificant  to  the  eyes  of  man  .  .  carries 
with  it  to  the  myriads  which  people  the  little  leaf  an  event 
as  terrible  and  as  decisive  as  the  destruction  of  a  world.  Now, 
on  the  grand  scale  of  the  universe,  we,  the  occupiers  of  this 
ball  which  performs  its  little  round  among  the  suns  and  the 
systems  that  astronomy  has  unfolded — we  may  feel  the  same 
littleness  and  the  same  insecurity.  We  differ  from  the  leaf 
only  in  this  circumstance,  that  it  would  require  the  operation 
of  greater  elements  to  destroy  us.  But  these  elements  exist. 

—DR.  THOMAS  CHALMERS. 

This  sea  of  fire,  like  the  first  abyss,  will  cover  the  face 
of  the  whole  earth,  make  a  kind  of  second  chaos,  and  leave 
a  capacity  for  another  world  to  rise  from  it.  ...  Let 
us  reflect  .  .  on  the  variety  and  transient  glory  of  all 
this  habitable  world;  how  by  the  force  of  one  element  break- 


170]  COSMJCAL   EVOLUTION   IN   THE    FUTURE  321 

ing  loose  upon  the  rest,  all  the  varieties  of  nature,  all  the 
works  of  art,  all  the  labors  of  men  are  reduced  to  nothing. 
.  Where  are  now  the  great  empires  of  the  world  and 
their  imperial  cities?  Their  pillars,  trophies,  and  monu- 
ments of  glory?  .  .  .  What  remains,  what  impressions, 
what  difference  or  distinctions  do  you  see  in  this  mass  of  fire? 

170.  Significance  of  the  Sunspots.— It  is  apparent  from 
what  has  already  been  observed,  that  the  evolution  of  the 
Solar  System,  according  to  the  new  theory,  is  still  far  from 
completion — is,  in  fact,  even  now  going  on  and  will  continue 
to  go  on.  It  has  been  noticed  when  discussing  the  facts  of 
geology  that  the  Sun  is  now  continually  cooling;  and  there 
are  grounds  for  regarding  the  spots  which  are  observed  upon 
its  surface  as  incipient  attempts  at  solidification  of  that 
surface.  These  sunspot  phenomena  may  now  be  examined 
more  in  detail. 

Nearly  all  scientific  authorities  regard  the  solar  spots  as 
solid,  and  as  cooler  than  the  rest  of  the  surface.  According 
to  Zollner,  the  Sun  was  a  white-hot  body,  and  its  spots  were 
scoriaceous  products  of  local  cooling.  Zollner's  theory,  as 
elaborated  by  M.  Schulz,  sixteen  years  later,  was,  that  a  cer- 
tain gas,  escaping  from  tremendous  pressure  in  the  lower 
regions  of  the  photosphere  into  the  upper  regions  of  the 
solar  atmosphere,  would  dilate  and  cool  sufficiently  to  con- 
dense into  the  liquid  and  then  into  the  solid  state,  and  thus 
fall  in  showers  upon  the  photosphere.  When  the  shower  is 
a  light  one,  a  "pore"  would  be  the  result;  when  it  is  heavy 
and  long-continued,  groups  of  slag  islands  would  form,  around 
which  the  photospheric  clouds  would  arrange  themselves  into 
the  characteristic  funnel  shape  of  the  penumbra,  at  the  bot- 
tom of  which  is  the  obscure,  solid  nucleus.  Prof.  Balfour 
Stewart  states: 

"It  has  been  pointed  out  by  the  Kew  observers  that  the 
bottom  of  a  spot  is  blacker,  because  it  is  colder  than  the 
general  surface,  and  they  have  likewise  brought  forward  evi- 
dence to  show  that  this  diminution  of  temperature  has  prob- 
ably been  produced  by  the  down-rush  of  comparatively  cold 
mjatter  from  above,  a  conclusion  which  has  since  been  con- 
clusively verified  by  spectroscopic  observation.  .  .  .  We 


322  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [171 

have     ...     in  the  faculae  the  necessary  reaction  of  this, 
or  the  up-rush  of  comparatively  hot  matter  from  below." 

And  also  Dr.  J.  Norman  Lockyer  says: 

"We  have  seen,  in  fact,  that  one  chief  point  about  the 
sun  is  that  it  is  cooled  on  the  outside;  that  masses  of  gas 
going  up  to  tremendous  altitudes  eventually  arrive  where  the 
atmosphere  is  cold  and  quiet,  and  where  they  again  take  on 
the  solid  or  liquid  form,  when  they  begin  to  go  down  again." 

These  are  representative  current  views  from  the  highest 
authorities  on  the  subject;  and,  while  they  differ  somewhat 
in  detail,  yet  they  essentially  agree  with  each  other,  and  with 
.the  deductions  from  the  theory  here  advanced. 

171.  The  Equatorial  Movement  of  the  Sun&pots. — The 
chief  peculiarities  of  sunspots  with  respect  to  motion  and 
locality,  which  have  hitherto  remained  unexplained,  is  readily 
and  reasonably  accounted  for  on  the  basis  of  the  connective 
system  of  evolution.  It  has  been  observed  that  the  spots 
near  the  sunspot  minimum,  appear  generally  about  latitude 
30°  north  or  south  of  the  solar  equator.  Here  they  seem  to 
rotate  round  the  Sun  in  a  period  of  some  26^  days  (slightly 
greater  south,  and  slightly  less  north  of  the  equator).  But, 
during  the  succeeding  years  up  to  about  the  next  sunspot 
minimum,  the  spot-zone  gradually  approaches  towards  the 
equator;  where  their  rotation-period  around  the  Sun's  axis 
is  only  about  25  days.  It  may  be  remarked  here,  as  conceded 
by  nearly  all  authorities  on  the  subject,  that  the  equatorial 
regions  of  the  Sun  are  hotter  than  the  higher  latitudes.  And 
another  fact  which  should  be  borne  in  mind  is  that  the  sun- 
spots  which  we  ordinarily  see  are  not  all  the  spots  which  form 
upon  the  Sun's  surface  by  the  descent  of  cooled  material 
from  above;  that,  in  fact,  such  spots  are  continually  formed 
upon  the  entire  solar  surface.  Upon  this  point,  Prof.  Bal- 
four  Stewart  may  be  quoted  once  more: 

"What  we  have  on  a  large  scale  in  the  spots  and  faculae 
we  have  on  a  small  scale  all  over  the  Sun's  disc.  When 
viewed  with  a  powerful  telescope  the  brightness  of  his  disc 
is  found  to  be  far  from  uniform,  the  whole  surface  being 
made  up  of  bright  and  dark  patches  existing  side  by  side. 
This  mottled  appearance  was  first  noticed  by  the  elder  Her- 
schel,  who  considered  the  pores,  as  he  termed  them,  to  be 


171]  COSMICAL  EVOLUTION  IN  THE  FUTURE  323 

small  spots — a  conclusion  which  has  since  been  abundantly 
verified  by  the  spectroscope."* 

Now  these  spots  thus  forming  over  the  entire  surface  of 
the  Sun,  being  solid  bodies  formed  by  the  descent  of  cooled 
material  from  the  upper  regions  of  the  solar  atmosphere,  are 
obviously  denser  than  the  heated  ocean  on  which  they  float. 
And  as  the  Sun  has  a  comparatively  great  velocity  of  axial 
rotation^  we  know  from  analogy  that  these  denser  bodies, 
having  freedom  of  motion,  would  tend,  owing  to  the  centrifu- 
gal force  generated  by  the  rotation,  to  approach  the  solar 
equator — just  as  we  have  noticed  would  be  the  case  with  the 
original  solar  spheroid.  But,  as,  in  obedience  to  this  tend- 
ency, the  incipient  crust-fragments  move  equatorwards,  they 
encounter  the  greater  heat  in  these  lower  regions,  and  are 
therefore  gradually  dissolved.  At  all  times,  ho  doubt,  there 
falls  by  far  the  greater  amount  of  cooled  material  in  the 
equatorial  regions,  and  smaller  and  smaller  amounts  on  equal 
surfaces  as  the  poles  are  approached,  owing  to  the  decreasing 
height  of  the  solar  atmosphere  in  these  directions.  But  at 
the  same  time,  the  greater  heat  of  the  former  prevents  the 
aggregation  of  this  cooled  material  into  spots  (except  when 
the  precipitation  is  comparatively  great  in  amount,  as  at 
sunspot  maximum),  just  as  the  paucity  of  the  falling  material 
in  the  polar  regions  has  the  same  effect.  So  that,  other 
things  equal,  the  first  appearance  of  the  spots  would  most 
probably  be  at  the  latitudes  between  the  polar  and  the  equa- 
torial regions.  This  would  approximately  be  the  case  at 
the  time  of  sunspot  minimum  when  the  planetary  connexions 
are  about  evenly  distributed  over  the  Sun's  equatorial  surface. 
But  towards  the  sunspot  maximum,  the  connexions  become 
bunched  in  certain  directions  upon  the  Sun's  equatorial  sur- 
face; the  solar  atmosphere,  ascending  in  these  aggregated 
connexions,  would  become  elongated  outwards  from  the 
equator,  and  consequently  would  be  of  still  less  elevation  over 
the  polar  regions.  Moreover,  the  ascending  vapors  rising 
higher  in  the  elongated  equatorial  atmosphere,  the  showers 
of  cooled  matter  would  descend  in  still  greater  profusion  upon 

*Nature,  33,   36. 


324  THE    CON/TECTIVE    THEORY  [172 

the  equatorial  regions;  and  thus,  owing  both  to  the  dimin- 
ished precipitation  in  the  higher  latitudes  and  the  increased 
precipitation  in  the  lower,  the  'spot-zone  moves  towards  the 
equator  between  minimum  and  maximum  of  sunspots. 

After  maximum,  however,  up  to  minimum  again,  we  might 
expect  a  poleward  movement  of  the  spot-zone  to  the  place 
of  beginning.  But  this  return  is  precluded  by  the  premised 
circumstances.  For  as  the  solar  connexions  are  moving  out 
of  conjunction,  the  regions  where  they  are  intermingled  and 
where  the  elevated  density  of  the  connective  atmosphere  is 
consequently  maintained,  become  smaller  and  smaller,  until 
they  finally  disappear  at  the  equator.  Thus  the  wave  of 
spots  would  continually  approach  the  equator  as  the  con- 
nexions moved  out  of  angular  coincidence;  until  finally  the 
previous  condition  of  approximate  uniformity  of  the  con- 
nective density  was  restored,  and  another  wave  would  begin 
in  the  intermediate  latitudes  as  before. 

172.  The  Greater  Angular  Velocity  of  Sunspots  at  the 
Equator. — Regarding  the  more  rapid  equatorial  rotation  of 
the  spots,  the  reasonable  supposition  may  be  made  that  the 
different  parts  of  the  Sun,  including  all  but  the  outer  portion 
of  its  atmosphere,  revolve  axially  at  the  same  angular  rate. 
This  is  what  happens  an  the  case  of  our  own  world,  so  far  as 
we  know;  the  atmosphere,  except  in  the  extreme  upper  re- 
gions, revolving  approximately  in  the  same  time  as  the  Earth 
itself;  and  it  seems  proper  to  reason  that  what  happens 
in  our  own  world  happens  also  in  other  worlds  in  analogous 
cases.  From  this  approximately  equal  angular  velocity  of 
all  parts  of  the  Sun  in  equal  times,  it  follows  that  the  middle 
regions  of  the  solar  atmosphere  (in  which  probably  most  of 
the  ascending  vapors  are  cooled)  would  revolve  with  a  con- 
siderably greater  absolute  velocity  than  the  proper  surface 
of  the  Sun,  where  the  spots  are  formed.  Now,  as  the  heated 
vapors  ascend  into  these  atmospheric  regions,  they  gradually 
acquire  the  absolute  velocity  of  these  regions;  and  when  they 
become  cooled,  and  fall  again  to  the  solar  surface  in  a  denser 
and  more  compact  form,  they  would  take  with  them  a  portion, 
at  least,  of  the  increase  of  velocity  thus  acquired;  so  that  the 


172]  COSMICAL  EVOLUTION  IN  THE  FUTURE  325 

spots  which  they  form  would  really  have  a  greater  angular 
and  absolute  velocity  of  rotation  than  the  general  surface 
on  which  they  float.  Also,  it  is  clear  that  the  equatorial 
atmospheric  regions  of  the  Sun  would  have  a  greater  absolute 
velocity  of  rotation,  and  that  this  velocity  continually  dimin- 
ishes up  to  the  poles  of  the  Sun,  where  it  is  nothing.  And 
besides,  as  the  equatorial  atmospheric  regions  extend  out- 
wards to  a  far  greater  distance  from  the  Sun's  center  than 
those  in  higher  latitudes,  the  absolute  velocity  of  the  former 
would  have  a  greater  ratio  to  that  of  the  latter  than  the 
absolute  velocity  of  the  proper  equatorial  surface  would  have 
to  that  of  the  proper  solar  surface  of  the  higher  latitudes. 
Therefore,  the  cooler  matter  which  falls  upon  the  equatorial 
regions  would  not  only  have  a  greater  absolute  velocity,  but 
also  a  greater  angular  velocity  than  that  which  falls  in  higher 
latitudes;  and  so  the  period  of  rotation  of  the  former  would 
be  less  than  that  of  the  latter,  in  accordance  with  actual  ob- 
servation. 

The  equatorial  movement  of  the  spots  would  partly  coun- 
teract this;  but  this  movement  is  so  slow,  and  the  existence 
of  an  individual  spot,  whether  large  or  small,  is  so  short 
(about  ten  or  twelve  days  on  the  average,  rarely  so  high  as 
fifty  days)  that  the  effect  of  this  counteraction  is  relatively 
insignificant.  The  same  remark  also  applies  to  the  friction 
of  the  solar  surface  with  the  spots ;  which,  if  the  period  of  ex- 
istence of  individual  spots  were  much  greater,  would  reduce 
their  angular  velocity  down  to  that  of  the  supporting  solar 
surface.* 

But  the  friction  of  a  solid  body  floating  upon  the  solar 
surface,  whether  gaseous  or  liquid,  would  probably  be  so  small 
that,  during  the  brief  life  of  a  spot,  its  effect  would  be  to 
dimmish,  rather  than  to  overcome,  the  extra  velocity.  It 
follows,  then,  from  these  considerations,  that  the  period  of 
the  Sun's  rotation  would  be  somewhat  greater  than  those 
of  the  spots,  by  which  it  has  hitherto  been  determined;  and 
that  the  greater  spot-period  the  most  closely  approximates 
to  it. 

*It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  a  sunspot  is  being  continually  con- 
sumed from  below,  and  continually  renewed  from  above. 


326  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [173 

Thus,  then,  does  the  secular  cooling  of  the  Sun  proceed; 
and  thus  would  it,  in  all  probability,  continue  until,  in  succeed- 
ing ages,  and  after  countless  catastrophic  interruptions,  one 
solid  and  continuous  crust  would  eventually  cover  the  Sun's 
entire  surface.  And  this  crust  would  expand  outwards  at  the 
equator,  separate  into  the  ring  form  and  precipitate  into  a 
planet  with  a  display  of  comets  and  meteorites,  just  as  the 
first  crust  did  upon  the  original  solar  spheroid; — this  again  to 
be  followed  by  secular  cooling  of  the  new  and  diminished  Sun, 
by  sunspots  and  succeeding  crusts  and  planets,  almost  infi- 
nitely repeated  through  the  seeming  eternity  of  the  future. 

173.  Present  Crust-Development  Upon  the  Earth. — On 
our  world  we  find  the  development  much  more  advanced  than 
it  is  upon  the  Sun;  which  is  scarcely  to  be  wondered  at  when 
we  recollect  that,  since  the  birth  of  our  planet,  two  crusts 
have  matured  upon,  and  separated  from  the  bosom  of  the 
Sun,  while  the  Earth  has  given  birth  to  just  one.  But  it  is 
only  natural  that  the  parent  should  be  more  prolific  than  the 
offspring  in  the  earlier  period  of  the  latter's  existence,  even 
though  the  former  did  not  possess  the  more  powerful  rotation 
and  ring-producing  energy.  The  Earth  is  not  yet  greatly 
behind  in  the  matter  of  progeny;  and  probably  long  before 
the  Sun  gives  birth  to  another  planet,  the  Earth  will  be  de- 
livered of  a  second  satellite. 

The  Earth-crust  upon  which  we  have  our  being  has  long 
since  become  cold  and  firm  at  the  outer  surface.  It  has  long 
since  commenced  to  bulge  outwards  at  the  equator,  and  this 
bulging  now  amounts  to  thirteen  miles  from  the  center  all 
around  the  Earth.  This  equatorial  expansion,  being  ab- 
stracted chiefly  from- the  polar  regions,  no  doubt  leaves  these 
regions  with  a  thinner  crust  than  that  of  the  lower  latitudes; 
which  also  implies  a  warmer  climate  there  than  would  other- 
wise prevail. 

We  appear  to  have  every  reason  for  believing  that  this 
equatorial  and  expansive  movement  of  the  Earth-crust  is 
now  taking  place,  and  will  continue  to  do  so.  It  is  slow  and 
almost  imperceptible;  but  the  evidences  of  its  existence  are 
clear  and  unmistakable.  When  we  examine  the  Earth-crust 


173]  COSMICAL   EVOLUTION   IN   THE   FUTURE  327 

closely  we  find  that  it  is  in  a  state  of  continual  tremor;  indi- 
cating, no  doubt,  the  continual  strain  to  which  it  is  sub- 
jected. Prof.  G.  H.  Darwin  has  investigated  these  Earth- 
tremors,  and  the  results  at  which  he  has  arrived  are  best 
stated  in  his  own  words  in  the  Fortnightly  Review. 

"Within  the  last  fifteen  years  it  has  been  discovered  that 
the  earth's  surface  is  being  continually  shaken  by  tremors, 
so  minute  as  to  remain  unsuspected  without  the  intervention 
of  the  most  delicate  instruments.  In  every  country  where 
the  experiments  have  been  tried  these  tremors  have  been 
detected,  and  not  merely  at  certain  periods,  but  so  incessantly, 
that  there  is  never  a  second  of  perfect  rest.  The  earth  may 
fairly  be  said  to  tremble  like  a  jelly.  The  pioneer  in  this 
curious  discovery  was  Father  Bertelli.  His  experiments 
relate  only  to  Italy,  but  that  which  has  been  found  true  also 
of  England,  France,  Egypt,  Brazil,  and  a  solitary  island  in 
the  South  Pacific  Ocean,  probably  holds  good  generally,  and 
we  may  feel  sure  that  earth-tremors  or  'microseisms'  are  not 
confined  to  countries  habitually  visited  by  the  grosser  sort 
of  earthquakes." 

It  is  probable  that  as  the  Earth  rotates  in  the  heart  of  the 
great  connective  atmosphere  surrounding  it,  and  as  the  indi- 
vidual connective  rays  pass  from  molecule  to  molecule  of  the 
Earth-crust,  this  alternate  tension  and  relief  would  occasion 
vibrations  of  the  parts  something  like  those  observed.  In 
support  of  this  view,  it  has  been  observed  that  earthquakes 
and  Earth-tremors  are  more  frequent  during  our  winter  in 
both  hemispheres,  at  which  time  the  strain  of  the  solar  con- 
nexion upon  the  Earth  is  most  intense.  M.  Perrey  has  also 
shown  that  there  are  more  earthquakes  when  the  Moon  is 
nearest  the  Earth,  and  more  when  she  is  on  the  meridian 
than  in  any  other  position; — all  of  which  is  obviously  explic- 
able by  the  undeniably  greater  strain  of  the  lunar  connexion 
upon  the  Earth-crust  in  these  positions. 

But  the  strain  of  the  Earth-connexions  upon  the  Earth- 
crust,  would  not  alone  be  the  cause  of  the  observed  tremors. 
There  is  also  the  centrifugal  strain  caused  by  the  Earth's 
rotation,  which  in  turn  produces  a  slow  and  gradual  tendency 
of  the  crust  to  move  towards  the  Equator  or  place  of  greater 
motion.  In  obedience  to  this  strain  the  crust  is  continually 
moving  irregularly  upwards  and  downwards  and  towards  the 


328  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [174 

Equator.      Quoting   again    from    Prof.    Darwin    in    the    same 
article : 

"Rossi  has  made  some  interesting  experiments  with  the 
microphone  on  microseisms.  .  .  .  As  long  as  the  micro- 
phone is  still,  nothing  is  heard;  but  on  the  occurrence  of  the 
slightest  tremor  a  noise  is  audible  .  .  .  The  instrument 
can  be  made  so  sensitive,  that  a  fly  may  be  heard  to  walk 
near  the  microphone  with  a  loud  tramp.  .  .  .  Rossi  placed 
the  microphone  on  the  ground,  in  a  cavern  sixty  feet  below 
the  surface,  on  a  rocky  part  of  Rocca  di  Papa,  an  extinct 
volcano  not  far  from  Rome,  whilst  he  listened  with  his  tel- 
ephone at  the  surface  of  the  earth.  He  then  heard  the  most 
extraordinary  noises,  which,  as  he  says,  revealed  'natural 
telluric  phenomena'.  The  sounds  he  describes  as  'roarings, 
explosions,  occurring  isolated  or  in  volleys,  and  metallic 
or  bell-like  sounds'.  They  all  occurred  mixed  together  and 
rose  and  fell  in  intensity  at  regular  intervals.  He  found  it 
impossible  by  any  artificial  disturbance  to  a  microphone  to 
produce  the  greater  number  of  these  noises.  The  microphone 
is  especially  sensitive  to  vertical  movements  of  the  soil, 
whereas  the  tronometer  fails  to  reveal  them.  Nevertheless, 
there  was  more  or  less  accordance  between  the  agitations  of 
the  two  instruments.  In  order,  then,  to  determine  the  noises 
corresponding  to  various  oscillations,  he  transported  his 
microphone  to  Palmieri's  Vesuvian  Observatory,  where  mild 
earthquakes  are  almost  incessant;  here  he  discovered  that 
each  class  of  shocks  had  its  characteristic  noise.  The  ver- 
tical shocks  gave  the  volleys  of  musketry  and  the  undulatory 
shocks  gave  the  roarings." 

174.  Variation  of  Terrestrial  Latitudes. — Prof.  Darwin 
continues : 

"Astronomers  are  much  puzzled  by  slight  changes  in  the 
level  of  their  instruments,  and  they  meet  this  inconvenience 
by  continually  reading  their  levels  and  correcting  their  re- 
sults accordingly.  Of  course  they  also  take  average  results. 
These  troublesome  changes  are  probably  earth  tremors,  with 
so  slow  a  motion  to  and  fro  that  the  term  tremor  becomes 
inappropriate.  This  kind  of  change  has  been  called  a  dis- 
placement of  the  vertical,  since  the  plummet  moves  rela- 
tively to  the  ground.  Thus  we  found  at  Cambridge  that  as 
the  pendulum  danced  it  slowly  drifted  in  one  direction  or  the 
other.  There  was  a  fairly  regular  daily  oscillation,  but  the 
pendulum  would  sometimes  reverse  its  expected  course,  for 
a  few  minutes,  or  for  an  hour.  During  the  whole  time  that 
we  were  observing,  the  mean  position  of  the  pendulum  for 
the  day  slowly  shifted  in  one  direction;  but  even  after  a 
voyage  of  six  weeks  the  total  change  was  still  very  small. 
How  far  this  was  a  local  effect,  and  how  far  general,  we  had 
no  means  of  determining. 


174]  COSMTCAL  EVOLUTION  IN  THE  FUTURE  329 

"This  is  a  subject  which  M.  d'Abbadie,  of  the  French  Insti- 
tute, has  made  especially  his  own.  Notwithstanding  his 
systematic  observations,  carried  on  during  many  years  in  an 
observatory  near  the  Bay  of  Biscay,  on  the  French  side  of  the 
Spanish  frontier,  hardly  anything  has  been  made  out  as  to 
the  laws  governing  displacements  of  the  vertical.  He  has, 
however,  been  able  to  show  that  there  is  a  tendency  for  de- 
flection of  the  vertical  towards  the  sea  at  high  tide,  but  this 
deflection  is  frequently  masked  by  other  simultaneous  chang- 
es of  unexplained  origin." 

It  has  long  been  known  also  that  earthquakes  are  pre- 
ceded by  tremors  leading  by  a  gradual  crescendo  to  the  de- 
structive shocks,  these  shocks  being,  by  this  theory  at  least, 
partly  due  to  the  sudden  adjustment  of  parts  of  the  crust  to 
accumulated  centrifugal  stresses.  According  to  this  view, 
then,  the  displacement  of  the  Earth-crust  should,  on  the 
whole,  be  in  a  direction  towards  the  Equator;  and,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  this  appears  to  be  borne  out  by  actual  observation. 

"An  examination  of  observations  made  at  a  number  of 
Northern  observatories  during  the  past  seventy-five  years — 
Konigsberg,  Milan,  Naples,  Paris,  Pulkowa,  and  Washington 
— appears  to  confirm  the  existence  of  such  changes.  At  Pul- 
kowa, which  furnishes  the  most  careful  series  of  observations, 
a  dimunition  of  the  latitude  of  0.23",  equivalent  to  about  23 
feet,  is  indicated  between  the  years  1843  and  1872;  but  in  all 
these  cases  the  variations  are  small,  and  we  must  be  extreme- 
ly cautious  in  ascribing  them  to  actual  changes  of  latitude."* 

It  does  not  seem,  however,  that  23  feet  in  the  time  stated 
is  so  very  small  a  movement  of  the  Earth-crust  towards  the 
Equator  after  all;  and  although  we  certainly  ought  to  be 
cautious  of  accepting  it  as  a  fact,  it  would  just  as  certainly 
be  very  imprudent  to  regard  the  evidence  of  our  own  eyes 
with  undue  suspicion,  because  its  acceptance  would  so  pro- 
foundly modify  the  existing  doctrines.  Speaking  of  this 
subject,  Prof.  C.  A.  Young  says: 

"As  regards  the  earth's  form  and  dimensions,  it  has  be- 
come quite  certain  that  Bessel's  ellipticity  (1/300)  is  too 
small.  Clarke's  value  of  1/294  is  now  admitted  and  em- 
ployed on  the  U.  S.  Coast  Survey  with  a  decided  improvement 
of  accordance.  A  slightly  larger  value  even  is  suggested  by 
the  most  recent  pendulum  observations,  and  1/292  is  now 

*Sir  William  C.  Winlock,  An  Account  of  Progress  in  Astronomy  in 
the  Year  1885,  p.  61. 


330  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [174 

adopted  in  Europe.  .  .  .  At  the  same  time  it  is  becom- 
ing increasingly  evident  that  very  little  is  now  to  be  gained  by 
endeavoring  to  find  a  spheroid  fitting  the  Earth's  actual  form 
more  closely.  It  will  be  best  simply  to  adopt  some  standard 
(say  that  of  Clarke,  but  it  makes  very  little  difference  what), 
and  to  investigate  hereafter  the  local  deviations  from  it. 
These  deviations  seem  to  be  larger  and  more  extensive  than 
used  to  be  supposed,  the  station  errors  in  latitude  and  longi- 
tude being  at  least  quantities  of  the  same  order  as  the  vari- 
ations of  elevation."* 

The  subject  is  so  important  and  its  evidence  in  favor  of 
the  teaching  of  the  new  theory  is  so  direct  and  so  unanimous 
that  the  insertion  here  of  a  few  further  quotations  regarding 
it  from  more  recent  authorities  may  be  pardoned. 

"The  determinations  of  the  latitude  of  Greenwich  made 
from  the  time  of  Flamsteed  (1693)  to  now — nearly  two  cen- 
turies— indicate  a  very  appreciable  diminution. "f 

"Progressive  diminution  of  latitude  at  Washington,  1845- 
1883,  0".31;  Paris,  1825-1891,  2". 05;  Milan,  1811-1871,  0".51; 
Naples,  1820-1871,  1".22;  Konigsberg,  1820-1843,  0".15;  Green- 
wich, 1838-1856,  0".51.  A  similar  tendency  is  shown  by  the 
observations  of  Peters,  Gylden,  and  Nyren  at  Pulkowa,  also 
by  my  own  observations  at  Bethlehem,  Pa.,  since  1875."$ 

"The  latitude  of  Natal  Observatory  has  decreased  steadily 
from  1885  to  1890  at  the  rate  of  0".27  per  annum." § 

"He  (Sir  George  Darwin)  accepted  as  worthy  of  consider- 
ation Prof.  Hecker's  explanation  of  the  remarkable  absence 
of  symmetry  in  the  path  of  the  vertical.  .  .  .  The  earth 
has  much  greater  rigidity  east-west  than  north-south. 
Lord  Kelvin  introduced  the  idea  of  gyroscopic  rigidity,  that 
is,  of  greater  rigidity  east-west  due  to  rotation."  §§ 

"Prof.  Turner,  in  his  Astronomical  Discovery,  states  that, 
apparently,  earthquakes  are  more  numerous  at  the  time  when 
the  vibration  is  greatest.  .  .  .  The  severe  earthquakes  of 
1906  occurred  soon  after  the  time  of  maximum  activity  of  the 
Pole."  || 

As  soon  as  the  secular  variation  of  terrestrial  latitudes 
was  discovered,  various  periods  were  assigned  to  it,  from 

*Nature,  35,   67. 

tProf.  Geo.  C.  Comstock,  Am.  Assoc.  Adv.  Sci.,  1891. 

JProf.   C.  L.  Doolittle,  Am.  Assoc.  Adv.   Sci.,   1893. 

§Nature,  51,  327.     §§Nature,  81,  427. 

||C.  G.  Abbot,   Smith.  Kept.   1906,  pp.   167-171 


175]  COSMICAL  EVOLUTION  IN  THE  FUTURE  331 

about  10  months  up  to  12  years.  The  late  Prof.  S.  C.  Chand- 
ler, who  was  a  pioneer  in  this  investigation  assigned  a  period 
of  427  days  and  also  one  of  12  years.  He  supposed  that  its 
effect  was  to  periodically  increase  the  latitudes  of  places  on 
one  side  of  the  Earth  by  30  or  40  feet  and  simultaneously  di- 
minish those  on  the  other  side  by  the  same  amount.  Some 
assign  a  periodical  movement  of  the  axis  of  rotation  as  its 
cause,  while  others  deny  this  agency.  Prof.  Newcomb  as- 
cribed it  to  local  precipitation  of  ice  and  snow  and  to  the 
effect  of  winds*,  and  Lord  Kelvin  "considers  that  the  rain 
falling  on  the  land  and  the  soil  transported  with  it  to  distant 
places  would  displace  the  earth's  axis  so  as  to  account  for 
the  observed  variation  of  latitude."!  More  recently  three 
prominent  Japanese  scientists  have  resolved  the  variation 
into  three  components,  one  of  which,  however,  still  remains 
unexplained. 

This  is  very  strong  confirmatory  evidence  of  the  theory 
here  advanced;  especially  the  continual  diminishing  of  ter- 
restrial latitudes,  the  greater  susceptibility  of  the  Earth  to 
north  and  south  perturbances,  and  the  concurrence  of  maxi- 
mum variation  of  latitude  with  severe  earthquakes — all  of 
which  clearly  and  unmistakably  suggest  the  real  cause  of  the 
variation.  The  observations,  very  apparently,  are  not  direct- 
ed by  any  recognized  guiding  principle  or  system;  but  never- 
theless they  could  hardly  be  in  more  complete  harmony  with 
the  principles  assigned  by  the  connective  theory. 

175.  Ring-Projection  of  the  Earth-Crust. — It  appears, 
therefore,  both  from  theoretic  deduction  and  from  actual  ob- 
servation, that  our  world  is  at  the  present  time  continually 
changing  its  form  and  its  dimensions;  continually,  but  with 
extreme  slowness,  propelling  its  surface  crust  towards  the 
Equator,  thus  diminishing  its  polar  and  increasing  the  equa- 
torial diameter.  Have  we  any  grounds  for  believing  that 
this  change  is  to  have  a  period  and  will  eventually  cease? 
On  the  contrary,  the  new  system  indicates  that  the  change 
will  continue  into  the  future,  and  that,  instead  of  ceasing, 
it  will  gradually  increase  in  energy.  For,  owing  to  the  in- 

*Natnl.  Acad.  feci.,  New  York,  Nov.  18,  1896.      fNature,  47,  110. 


332  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [176 

creased  equatorial  diameter,  the  absolute  rotational  velocity 
of  the  equatorial  regions  will  be  increased  on  the  basis  of 
the  observed  equal  angular  rate  of  rotation  of  all  terrestrial 
parts,  and  this  increased  absolute  velocity  of  the  equatorial 
regions  will  in  turn  increase  the  centrifugal  tendency  by 
which  the  expansion  of  the  equatorial  diameter  takes  place. 
By  this  system  of  evolution  then,  we  have  no  alternative 
but  to  regard  the  changes  now  taking  place  in  the  Earth- 
crust  as  mere  steps  in  the  general  cosmical  evolution,  sub- 
sequent steps  of  which  will  be  the  projection  of  the  crust 
into  an  Earth-ring,  and  the  disruption  of  this  ring  into  a 
second  terrestrial  satellite. 

176.  The  Primary  Connexion  of  the  Earth-Crust. — It  may, 
perhaps,  be  profitable  to  glance  at  the  various  steps  of  this 
process  of  change  which  will  take  place  in  the  Earth-crust, 
even  though  at  the  expense  of  some  repetition.  Premising, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  original  spheroid,  that  atoms  are  con- 
nected with  contiguous  atoms,  and  that  molecules  formed 
from  such  atoms  will  also  be  connected  with  similar  con- 
tiguous molecules  by  bonds  stronger  and  more  complex  than 
those  of  atoms,  as  the  molecules  themselves  are  more  com- 
plex than  the  atoms,  we  can  comprehend  how  the  particles 
of  the  initial  fragments  of  crust  (the  earthspots,  as  they  may 
be  termed)  would  firmly  cohere,  and  how  the  connexions 
between  such  crust  fragments  and  the  heated  vapor  under- 
neath (which  hold  the  two  together)  would  diminish  in  com- 
plexity and  strength  from  the  fragments  down  into  the  va- 
por. And  after  the  crust  became  continuous,  as  it  is  at 
present,  we  can  conceive  that  its  particles  are  still  held  to- 
gether by  their  molecular  connexions,  as  well  as  to  the  va- 
por underneath  the  crust  by  the  graduated  connexions  of  that 
vapor.  As  each  particle  of  the  crust  originally  lay  upon  the 
bosom  of  the  vapor,  and  so  had  its  independent  connexion 
with  it,  and  as  the  coalescence  of  particles  reasonably  in- 
volves the  coalescence  of  the  connexions  of  these  particles 
with  the  vapor,  it  follows  that  however  piled  up  and  aggre- 
gated the  crust  particles  eventually  become,  each  would  still 
have  substantially  its  own  original  connexion  with  the  vapor, 


177]  COSMICAL  EVOLUTION  IN  THE  FUTURE  333 

although  really  the  individual  connexions  of  a  mass  of  par- 
ticles may  be  joined  into  a  complex  bond,  as  the  mass  itself 
is  a  complex  body  of  molecules.  So  that  between  the  pres- 
ent Earth-crust  and,  the  internal  vapor  we  may  posit  the  ex- 
istence of  a  bond  of  union  which  is  equal  to  the  aggregated 
bonds  of  all  the  individual  particles  of  the  entire  crust.  As 
the  crust  moves  equatorially,  it  would  evidently  be  accom- 
panied by  a  similar  movement  of  the  bond;  and  when  the 
crust  separates  from  the  Earth  in  the  ring  form,  the  undi- 
minished  bond  would  still  unite  the  ring  with  the  Earth's 
equator,  and  would  elongate  by  additions  (probably  to  its 
inner  end)  as  the  ring  expanded  outwards. 

177.  Gravitation  Upon  the  Expanded  Earth-Crust. — It  has 
been  already  intimated  that  the  attraction  of  gravitation 
varies  not  only  with  the  law  of  inverse  squares,  but  also  in 
accordance  with  the  surface  conditions.  The  present  crust 
of  the  Earth  being  of  a  highly  developed  structure,  the  molec- 
ular motions  of  the  Earth's  connective  atmosphere  are  cor- 
respondingly complex;  but  as  the  connective  atmosphere 
passes  inwards  or  downwards  through  the  crust  and  into 
the  heated  central  vapor,  its  molecular  motions  would  grad- 
ually diminish  in  complexity  until,  when  the  vapor  is  reached, 
its  molecular  motions  are  reduced  to  their  simplest  form. 
Assuming  that  this  complexity  of  molecular  motions  of  the 
connective  atmosphere,  which  would  invariably  accompany 
crust  development,  would  cause  bodies  of  a  similar  devel- 
opment with  the  crust  to  approach  or  fall  towards  it,  and 
bodies  of  a  dissimilar  development  to  be  repelled  from  it — 
it  can  be  understood  that  the  resistance  to  the  outward  ex- 
pansion of  the  crust  by  the  attraction  of  gravitation  would 
thus  be  very  materially  diminished.  As  the  crust  moves 
equatorially,  and  eventually  separates  from  the  Earth,  the 
connective  atmosphere  surrounding  it  would  still  maintain 
the  complexity  of  its  molecular  motions,  until  its  final  dis- 
ruption, when  all  the  acquired  complexity  of  motion  would 
be  lost.  But  the  connective  atmosphere  remaining  upon  the 
Earth  would  evidently  correspond  in  the  simplicity  of  its 


334  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [179 

motions  to  the  primordial  state  of  development  there  pre- 
vailing. 

This  consideration  by  itself  implies,  therefore,  that  a  body 
of  a  similar  development  to  that  of  the  ring,  if  placed  be- 
tween the  ring  and  the  Earth,  would  gravitate  to  the  for- 
mer, rather  than  to  the  latter.  But  how  much  this  factor 
of  gravitation  would  be  antagonized  by  the  density  factor, 
there  does  not  appear  to  be  sufficient  data  to  determine.  It 
seems  probable,  however,  that  the  resistance  to  the  outward 
movement  of  the  ring  would  arise  chiefly  from  the  molecular 
connexions  of  the  ring  itself,  and  from  the  tension  of  the 
primary  connexion  with  the  Earth.  And  when  the  ring  would 
eventually  fracture  at  some  weak  point,  the  developed  at- 
mosphere which  still  surrounds  it  would  draw  the  separated 
parts  to  the  point  of  aggregation,  perhaps  with  nearly  as 
great  an  energy  as  it  now  exerts  on  falling  bodies. 

178.  Inner  Fringe  of  the  Earth-Ring. — As  the  crust  would 
continue  to  expand  at  the  Equator,  the  crust  at  the  Poles 
would  become  more  and  more  attenuated;    and   eventually, 
as  the  expansion  proceeds,   the  polar  crust  would  fracture 
down  even  to  the  original  vapor.     As  this  polar  fracture  con- 
tinues to  widen,  the  equatorial  expansion  would  become  com- 
paratively  more   rapid,   as   one   of   the   hindrances   to   such 
expansion,  the  molecular  connexions   of  the  crust  itself,  is 
thus  to  a  great  degree  overcome.     In  the  wake  of  the  borders 
of  the  polar  fractures  as  they  move  towards   the  Equator, 
would  follow  an  inceptive  crust  of  a  liquid  or  scoriaceous 
nature,  which  would  form  through  the  cooling  influence  of 
ocean  and  air  upon  the  exposed  sea  of  vapor;  and  when  the 
borders    of   the   two    polar   fractures    finally   met   upon   the 
Equator  to  form  the  inner  edge  of  the  solid  ring,  this  neo- 
plastic  crust  would  form,  as  the  ring  expanded  outwards,  an 
inner  fringe,   thinner  and  thinner  towards   the   inner   edge, 
until  it  finally  dissolves  into  the  ring-connexion. 

179.  The    Higher    Forms   of    Life   as   Affected    by   These 
Changes. — In  this  process  of  the  evolution  of  our  world,  there 
does  not  appear  to  be  any  indication  of  sudden  and  serious 
catastrophes,  at  least  until  the  stage  of  the  ring-disruption 


179]  COSMICAL  EVOLUTION  IN  THE  FUTURE  335 

is  arrived  at.  Violent  shakings  and  snappings  would  char- 
acterize the  equatorial  movement  of  the  crust  in  the  future, 
just  as  in  the  present  and  in  the  past,  and  very  likely  with 
even  more  disastrous  results;  but  these  quakings  and  snap- 
pings  would  evidently  occur  in  those  regions  with  great 
thickness  and  extent  of  solid  rock,  and  the  disastrous  ones 
only  where  this  rock  exists  near  the  surface.  For  in  those 
regions  where  the  solid  rock  is  wanting  in  the  crust,  the 
yielding  would  evidently  be  so  slow  and  gradual  as  to  be 
imperceptible;  and  where  it  is  deep  down  beneath  softer 
material,  the  jar  would  be  about  absorbed  by  the  latter  be- 
fore arriving  at  the  surface. 

After  the  polar  fractures  had  taken  place,  there  would  be 
geysers  and  volcanoes  and  earth-trembling  for  a  time  prob- 
ably on  a  much  grander  scale  than  at  present;  but  this 
would  take  place  far  from  the  abodes  of  man;  and  the  most 
probable  ultimate  effect  of  the  increased  seismic  activity  at 
the  Poles,  would  be  the  amelioration  of  the  frigid  climate 
now  prevailing  there.  But  long  prior  to  the  separation  of 
the  crust  in  the  ring  form,  gradual  changes  in  the  quality 
of  the  atmosphere,  arising  out  of  these  disturbances,  would 
presumably  take  place;  and  these  changes  might  fatally  af- 
fect, or  at  least  depauperate,  the  higher  forms  of  animated 
existence.  And  after  the  separation  of  the  crust,  the  dis- 
tribution of  air,  water,  heat,  and  gravitation  upon  it  would 
evidently  change  to  such  an  extent  as  to  make  the  extinction 
of  the  higher  forms  of  life  no  longer  improbable.  For  the 
air  that  we  now  breathe  would  certainly  not  all  appertain 
to  the  crust  in  the  ring  form  but  probably  such  a  part  of  it 
as  the  mass  of  the  ring  is  of  the  mass  of  the  entire  globe; 
and  the  same  remark  would  also  apply  to  the  connective  at- 
mosphere; so  that  both  air  and  gravitation  would  be  very 
greatly  modified  upon  the  Earth-ring.  Moreover  the  extreme 
heat  to  which  all  but  the  outer  edge  of  the  ring  would  be 
subjected  from  the  fiery  globe  of  the  Earth,  together  with 
the  probability  that  the  remnant  of  the  waters  not  gasified 
and  thus  retained  upon  the  Earth,  would  seek  the  outer  edge 
of  the  ring  and  there  form  an  ocean — all  these  probable  cir- 


336  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [180 

cumstances  confirm  the  belief  that  the  essential  conditions 
of  all  but  the  lowest  forms  of  life  upon  every  part  of  the 
world  would  be  entirely  subverted.  What  remained  of  the 
labors  of  our  hands  from  the  cruel  erosion  of  the  winds  and 
the  waters  would  be  the  sole  mementos — alas!  not  mementos, 
but  mere  material  and  unrecognized  remains — of  our  race; 
and  these  would  presumably  endure  through  the  dreary  and 
sterile  ages  of  the  ring-expansion. 

180.  Disruption  of  the  Earth-Ring. — But  the  continual  ex- 
pansion of  the  ring  would  not  forever  be  compatible  with 
its  stability  as  such.  It  must  sooner  or  later  yield  to  the 
ever-increasing  centrifugal  strain  upon  it.  The  final  crash 
must  come;  and  all  the  development  which  ages  of  ages  have 
accumulated  would  pass  into  its  original  vapor.  All  the  arts 
and  sciences  which  we  have  been  at  such  infinite  pains  to 
perfect;  all  our  vast  literature  and  almost  perfected  intel- 
lectual culture;  all  our  grand  monuments  of  architecture  and 
engineering;  our  inventions,  our  plans,  our  hopes,  our  fears, 
our  loves,  our  memories — all  melt  away  forever!  Not  the 
least  vestige  or  trace  would  remain  to  tell  the  story  of  our 
being,  our  wealth,  our  magnificence,  our  intelligence!  From 
the  vapor  out  of  which  we  arose,  to  that  vapor  shall  we  re- 
turn; and  in  that  vapor  shall  all  our  achievements  be  buried 
and  our  memories  be  eternally  forgotten! 

It  may  indeed  chance  that  a  very  slight  trace  of  us  would 
survive  the  awful  convulsion.  The  fragments  which  by  the 
tremendous  energy  of  the  crash  are  hurled  outwards  to  wan- 
der through  space,  may  bear  some  marks  of  our  inscriptions 
and  our  handiwork.  Prof.  Langley,  speaking  of  the  same  sub- 
ject from  a  different  standpoint,  gives  utterance  to  the  same 
thought  in  referring  to  the  possibility  of  "a  meteorite  bring- 
ing to  us  the  story  of  a  lost  race  in  some  fragment  of  art 
or  architecture  of  a  lost  world."  At  least  the  rocks  in  which 
are  buried  the  solid  remains  of  the  lowest  organic  forms — 
these  may  partly  escape  destruction;  and  as  they  wander 
through  space  in  after  ages,  they  may  fall  upon  some  remote 
inhabited  planet  and  convey  to  the  beholder  the  intelligence 
that  other  worlds  than  his  own,  somewhere  in  the  realms  of 


181]  COSMICAL  EVOLUTION  IX  THE  FUTURE  337 

space,  have  been  peopled  with  creatures  not  greatly  different 
from  those  of  his  own  world. 

The  eminent  geologist,  Dr.  Hahn,  has  a  few  years  ago 
completed  a  series  of  investigations  upon  some  huge  me- 
teoric stones  which  fell  from  the  sky  in  Hungary  during  the 
summer  of  1866.  Thin  laminae  of  these  bodies,  subjected  to 
examination  under  a  powerful  microscope,  have  been  found 
to  contain  what  was  supposed  to  be  coralline  and  spongeous 
formations,  and  to  reveal  unmistakable  traces  of  the  lower 
forms  of  vegetation.  The  writer  is  aware  that  these  alleged 
discoveries  of  Dr.  Hahn  are  almost  entirely  discredited  by 
men  of  science.  But  how  far  this  may  be  owing  to  the  totally 
different  views  on  the  origin  of  meteorites  which  these  scien- 
tists entertain  (by  the  most  generally  accepted  of  which 
such  formations  and  traces  would,  of  course,  be  impossible), 
it  is  not  for  the  writer  to  say,  particularly  as  he  has  never 
examined  Dr.  Hahn's  drawings.  The  latter's  conclusions, 
however,  are  in  direct  accordance  with  the  new  system;  and 
not  only  his,  but  those  of  others  also  who  have  impartially 
examined  the  subject. 

Such  traces  as  these  are  all  that  would  remain  of  us  and 
our  surroundings ;  and  apparently  they  can  remain  in  no  other 
manner.  In  all  probability,  then,  the  meteorites  are  our  most 
permanent  monuments ;  and  alas !  even  they  are  but  transient. 

181.  Pre-Lunar  and  Other  Races  of  Mankind. — After  all, 
our  fate  is  but  the  fate  of  other  races  of  mankind  which  have, 
in  all  probability,  preceded  us;  and  will  be  the  fate  of  others 
that  will,  in  all  probability,  follow  us.  There  appears  to  be 
no  reason  to  doubt  that  our  world  was  inhabited  while  yet 
the  Moon  laid  upon  its  bosom.  All  the  conditions  which  now 
supervene,  in  all  likelihood  supervened  then;  the  same  genial 
warmth  of  the  Sun — interrupted  for  a  time  by  an  ice  age, 
prior  to  the  birth  of  Venus,  as  in  our  own  epoch  it  has  been 
just  prior  to  the  birth  of  Mercury;,  the  same  atmosphere,  only 
somewhat  more  dense,  perhaps;  the  same  moisture,  and  the 
same  ages  on  ages  of  crust-development.  And  these  condi- 
tions would  leave  nothing  to  be  desired  more  than  we  enjoy, 


338  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY 

to  bring  forth  the  successive  steps  of  the  ascending  organic 
development  up  to  the  highest  order  of  human  intelligence; 
which  may,  indeed,*  have  been  higher  than  we  have  even 
the  capacity  to  imagine.  The  time  for  such  development  had 
surely  been  ample,  as,  no  doubt,  it  will  be  with  ourselves. 

But  this  prelunar  race,  with  all  its  supposable  perfectness, 
has  dissolved  away  forever;  and  it  may  indeed  be  that  an- 
other, but  a  different  race,  will  arise  from  its  ashes,  which, 
in  its  turn,  will  suffer  a  similar  fate.  We  can  as- 
sign no  valid  reason  why  the  Sun,  and  even  the  Moon, 
should  not  eventually  be  inhabited.  It  is  true  that  there  is 
little  or  no  evidence  of  the  existence  of  air  upon  the  latter 
at  the  present  time;  and  in  any  event  the  air  upon  the  Moon 
would  be  less  for  equal  areas  than  upon  the  Earth,  because 
the  surface  of  the  former  is  greater  relatively  to  its  mass 
than  the  surface  of  the  latter  is  to  its  mass.  But  while  this 
would  evidently  tend  to  modify  organic  beings  as  we  know 
them,  we  have  no  right  to  suppose  that  it  would  render  the 
existence  of  all  organic  beings  impossible.  It  is  also  true 
that  we  see  upon  the  lunar  surface  not  the  least  sign  or  trace 
of  water,  and  only  a  slight  trace  of  its  vapor  in  the  lunar  at- 
mosphere. But  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  Moon's  crust 
at  the  present  time  may,  in  accordance  with  the  new  system 
of  things,  be  so  little  cooled  from  its  original  state  as  to 
render  the  existence  of  water  upon  it  impossible.  If  this 
should  really  be  the  case,  as  indeed  apparently  undeniable 
changes  in  the  craters  of  the  lunar  volcanoes  seem  to  indi- 
cate,! the  lunar  gravity  being  so  small,  and  the  lunar  air 
so  thin,  the  most  probable  form  in  which  the  bulk  of  the  wa- 
ter could  be  supposed  to  exist  there  is  in  a  gaseous  state,  or 
state  of  dissociation  into  its  elements;  in  which  it  would  not 
only  be  invisible  to  us,  but  would  also  very  likely  have  little 
or  no  effect  in  refracting  the  rays  of  light  which  pass  through 
it. 

The  Moon  is  a  planet  and  the  Earth  is  its  sun.  It  evi- 
dently does  not  receive  as  much  heat  from  the  Earth  at  the 
present  time  as  the  latter  does  from  the  Sun;  but  it  may  re- 

*  Judging  from  the  present  savage  exhibition  by  some  of  our  most  civ- 
ilized nations. 

fSee  Prof.  R.  A.  Proctor,  The  Moon,  pp.  266-72. 


182]  COSMICAL  EVOLUTION  IN  THE  FUTURE  339 

ceive  more  heat  today  from  the  Earth  than  it  does  from  the 
Sun,  owing  to  the  differentiation  of  the  connexions  which  has 
already  been  sufficiently  discussed  (Arts.  100,  105).  The  Sun 
also  is  a  planet  with  respect  to  its  sun;  and  its  surface  con- 
ditions may  eventually  be  nearly  the  same,  with  respect  to 
the  existence  of  life,  as  now  obtains  upon  the  Earth. 

182.  Continued  Evolution  and  the  Limit  at  Which  the 
Process  of  Subdivision  Would  Cease. — The  same  process  of 
evolution  in  various  stages  of  advancement  appears  to  be  gen- 
eral. The  Sun,  the  Earth,  the  planets,  the  Moon,  the  sat- 
elites — each  is  continually  becoming  colder  at  the  surface 
and  developing  its  crust;  and  as  each  has  more  or  less  of 
axial  rotation,  a  centrifugal  strain  and  an  equatorial  move- 
ment of  the  crust  inevitably  ensues;  this  eventually  culmi- 
nating in  the  separation  of  the  crust  in  the  ring  form,  and  in 
the  precipitation  of  the  ring  into  a  new  and  independent  body. 
And  then  the  new  bodies  and  the  old  begin  the  same  pro- 
cess over  again. 

The  question  now  arises — Where  is  this  process  of  evo- 
lution to  end? — .for  surely  it  would  not  be  logical  to  assume 
that  it  could  continue  in  one  changeless  cycle  forever.  In 
the  first  edition  of  this  work,  the  limit  assigned  to  this  pro- 
cess of  subdivision  was  the  atom.  But  twenty-five  years  have 
not  gone  by  without  resulting  additions  to  our  knowledge,  and 
today  it  is  known  that  the  atom  itself  is  a  vast  and  complex 
system  containing  thousands  of  components,  each  more  com- 
plex than  the  atom,  according  to  our  former  conception  of  it. 
It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  assume  that  the  process  of  plan- 
etary subdivision  which  we  now  see  going  on  about  us,  must 
be  gradually  carried  down,  step  by  step,  not  only  to  the  atom, 
but  even  to  the  smallest  ultimate  component  of  the  atom; 
for,  according  to  the  new  theory,  it  is  only  by  this  very  pro- 
cess of  subdivision  that  the  smallest  ultimate  component  of 
the  atom  has  been,  or  can  be,  obtained. 

This  is  undoubtedly  a  very  large  conception  to  be  at  once 
comprehended.  Besides  the  mind  is  naturally  much  hamp- 
ered by  the  necessary  grossness  of  the  ideas  which  hitherto 
have  nearest  approached  this  conception.  We  have  become 


340  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [182 

so  accustomed  to  the  present  order  and  condition  of  things 
that  we  unconsciously  regard  them  as  permanent.  We  do, 
indeed,  conceive  the  planets  and  the  Sun  to  have  a  beginning, 
but  of  their  end,  if  we  have  any  conception  at  all,  it  is  a 
very  flimsy  and  visionary  one.  Radiant  phenomena,  recently 
discovered,  have  forced  an  expansion  of  our  previous  ideas 
of  the  ultimate  element  of  matter,  the  atom;  have  indeed 
opened  up  the  latter  before  our  mental  eyes  as  an  extremely 
complex  microcosm,  seething  with  orbital  motions  having 
velocities  ranging  around  that  of  light.  There  is,  however, 
a  hesitation  to  foresake  beloved  old  ideas  and  accept  radi- 
cally different  ones  instead.  We  are  unconsciously  very  an- 
thropomorphic; we  judge  phenomena  both  great  and  small, 
actual  and  potential,  as  regards  their  nature  and  even  tneir 
existence,  largely  by  our  own  sensations;  and  we  naturally 
grope  with  reluctance  in  the  slackness  of  Nature  where  our 
senses  no  longer  guide  and  direct  us.  This  is  not  at  all  to 
be  wandered  at  ^ben  we  hava  no  conception  whatever  of  the 
origin  or  causation  of  the  new  phenomena  which  we  dimly 
endeavor  to  perceive.  And  now  when  we  are  about  to  be 
carried  much  farc.-ier  into  the  depths  of  the  unknown,  where 
the  structural  complexity  is  beyond  anything  of  which  wo 
httve  hitherto  dreamt  and  where  the  speed  of  orbital  motion 
may  be  millions  of  times  greater  even  than  that  of  Jight-- 
how  cnn  frail  human  mentality  help  an  almost  irresistible 
aversion  to  such  a  plunge?  Yet  such  a  step  the  connective 
theory  now  compels  us  to  take.  But  we  are  not  to  take  it 
wholly  in  darkness.  Our  patn  will  be  lightened  by  a  glimpse 
of  the  continuous  and  regular  process  of  Nature  leading  into 
these  domains — the  one  grand  chain  of  causation  of  which 
a  few  great  philosophers  have  dreamt  as  connecting  all  phe- 
nomena, and  showing  the  consecutive  derivation  of  every  phe- 
nomenon at  any  time  from  preceding  phenomena — in  the  past, 
in  the  present,  and  in  the  future. 

There  appears  no  alternative.  The  process  of  evolution 
we  now  see  going  on  around  us  must  continue  to  go  on  until 
all  matter  is  reduced  to  its  proximately  ultimate  divisions. 
And  this  applying  to  the  universe  as  well  as  to  any  particular 


184]  COSMICAL  EVOLUTION  IN  THE  FUTURE  341 

system,  we  thus  finally  arrive  at  the  same  state  of  things 
With  which  we  started — a  universal  spheroid  of  approxi- 
mately homogenous  vapor;  which  in  turn  develops  a  surface 
crust,  and  repeats  over  again  the  same  grand  evolutionary 
round  of  division  and  segregation. 

183.  Glimpse  of  the  Successive  Stages  of  Cosmical   Evo- 
lution.— It  seems  utterly  beyond  the  power  of  the  human  in- 
tellect   to    follow    the    various    and    apparently    innumerable 
stages  of  this  Grand  Round  of  physical  evolution  from  the 
present  down  to  the  atomic  stage.     And  yet,  in  order  to  ob- 
tain a  true  understanding  of  the  phenomena  of  our  environ- 
ment, some  glimpse  of  these  various  stages  appears  to  be 
absolutely  necessary.     For,  if  the  new  system  be  the  true 
one,   these  phenomena  are  results   which  have  been   deter- 
mined by  similar  cosmic  rounds  of  evolution  in  the  ages  of 
ages  of  the  past.     Heat,  light,  gravitation,  magnetism,  and 
life,  being  now  acknowledged  on  all  hands  as  various  forms 
of  atomic  or  molecular  motion,  it  behooves  us  to  trace  if  pos- 
sible the  successive  stages  of  evolution  which  lead  down  to 
atomic  and  molecular  phenomena  in  order  that  we  may  right- 
ly comprehend  the  mechanism  by,  or  in,  which  they  exist. 
Imperfect  as  we  can  only  hope  to  perform  a  labor  of  such 
magnitude,  yet  some  general  deductions  may  be  arrived  at 
which  will  be,  perhaps,  near  approximations  to  the  truth,  and 
therefore  valuable  for  our  guidance. 

184.  Expansion    of    Evolving    Systems. — As   already   inti- 
mated, the  orbit  of  Neptune  probably  extends  outwards  con- 
siderably beyond  the  primordial  limits  of  the  solar  spheroid; 
and  similarly,  perhaps,  with  the  Moon's  orbit  with  respect 
to  the  primordial  limits  of  the  Earth,  and  with  the  orbits  of 
sub-satellites,    sub-sub-satellites,    etc.,    with    respect    to    the 
original  limits  of  their  respective  primaries.     But  evidently 
the  amount  of  recession  of  the  bodies  immediately  arising 
from  the  parent  of  a  system  would  considerably  depend  upon 
the  original  velocity  of  rotation  of  that  parent  (Art.  80,  c,  d) ; 
that  system  in  which  the  rotational  velocity  of  the  parent 
was  the  greatest  obviously  having  the  greatest  amount  of 
recession.     In  the  Solar  System  the  original  rotatory  veloc- 


342  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [185 

ity  of  the  solar  spheroid  has  been  such  as  to  cause  a  certain 
amount  of  recession;  but  in  other  systems  of  a  similar  order 
this  velocity  may  have  been  comparatively  small,  so  that 
little  recession  would  take  place*  and  in  still  others  it  may 
have  been  comparatively  great,  so  that  a  much  greater 
amount  of  recession  would  take  place  therein  than  in  the 
Solar  System. 

In  the  Solar  System  the  recession  appears  to  be  so  great 
that  the  similar  recession  of  the  bodies  in  the  planetary 
systems  of  which  it  is  composed,  is  not  likely  ever  to  inter- 
fere with  the  proper  motions  of  these  systems.  For  ex- 
ample, the  utmost  reasonable  expansion  of  the  Earth-system, 
or  of  the  various  sub-systems  which  would  eventually  com- 
pose it,  can  hardly  be  supposed  to  exceed  13,000,000  miles 
from  the  Earth's  center,  or  about  half  of  the  least  distance 
that  ever  separates  us  from  the  nearest  planet,  Venus.  And 
what  is  true  of  the  Solar  System  in  this  respect  would  evi- 
dently be  true  of  sister  systems  in  which  the  original  rota- 
tional velocity  was  as  great  or  greater. 

185.  Eventual  Interference  of  Evolving  Systems  and  the 
Results. — But  in  a  system  in  which  the  original  velocity  was 
comparatively  very  small,  and  in  which  the  recession  of  the 
bodies  arising  from  its  original  spheroid  was  small  in  con- 
sequence, this,  it  appears,  would  not  be  the  case.  For  in  such 
a  system  the  component  systems  would  be  situated  close  to- 
gether, and  as  these  component  systems  were  eventually  sub- 
divided into  lower  and  lower  orders  of  systems,  which  might 
ultimately  expand  outwards,  just  as  in  the  Solar  System,* 
the  obvious  consequence  would  seem  to  be  an  eventual 
clashing  of  the  motions  of  the  component  planetary,  or  sub- 
systems. In  this  clashing  of  the  bodies  of  neighboring  sys- 
tems, several  things  are  to  be  considered:  (1)  it  would  likely 
take  place  at  first  between  the  two  outer  sub-systems,  be- 
cause these  are  the  older  and  their  evolution  consequently 
more  advanced;  (2)  the  bodies  would  collide  from  opposite 

*The  planetary,  or  lunar,  rotations  in  the  system  of  a  slowly  rotating 
primary  may  be  just  as  rapid  as  the  similar  rotations  in  the  system  of  a 
rapidly  rotating  primary,  as  these  rotations  appear  to  have  no  connection 
or  dependence  whatever  upon  the  rotations  of  their  respective  original 
spheroids. 


186]  CObMTCAL  EVOLUTION  IN  THE  FUTURE  343 

directions  with  respect  to  their  motions  in  all  orders  of  sys- 
tems lower  than  the  planetary,  because  the  planetary  sys- 
tems, of  which  they  are  the  peripheral  components,  revolve 
in  the  same  general  direction,  and  thus  about  all  sensible 
motion  of  the  colliding  bodies  would  cease,  except  their  prop- 
er planetary  motion;  (3)  the  colliding  bodies  would  be  re- 
duced to  their  original  vapor,  as  the  violence  of  their  colli- 
sion would  probably  be  even  greater  than  that  of  the  aggre- 
gating matter  in  the  disruption  of  a  planetary  ring;  and  (4) 
the  gaseous  matter  thus  resulting  would  gravitate  inwards 
to  the  centers  of  their  respective  planetary  systems,  owing 
to  the  destruction  of  about  all  their  motion  around  these  and 
probably  other  subordinate  centers;  and  as  the  products  of 
the  collisions  were  falling  into  the  center  of  each  planetary 
system,  each  of  the  other  bodies  which  revolves  around  this 
center  would  impinge  upon  and  impart  to  them  a  portion  of 
its  own  motion,  so  that,  as  the  center  was  more  and  more 
approached,  the  rotation  thus  imparted  to  the  vapor  would 
be  more  and  more  accelerated.  And  endless  varieties  of 
these  phenomena,  depending  upon  the  systemic  order  and  the 
endless  variations  of  the  masses  and  motions  of  the  colliding 
bodies,  would  obviously  take  place. 

186.  Effects  of  the  Irregular  Motions  of  Comets  and  Me- 
teorites.— But  these  varieties  are  but  a  moiety  of  the  cosmic 
phenomena  of  this  nature.  The  comets  and  meteoritic 
streams,  which  no  doubt  appertain  to  every  other  system  as 
to  our  own,  and  which,  quite  possibly,  form  the  greater  por- 
tion of  it,  would  continually  fall  at  all  inclinations  upon  the 
plane  of  rotation  of  the  system  and  so  expand  it  into  a  globu- 
lar form.  Even  in  our  own  Solar  System,  and  in  every  system 
which  had  an  equal  or  greater  amount  of  primordial  rotation,, 
the  agency  of  comets  and  meteorites  would  ultimately  produce 
the  same  effect.  For  as  the  various  subdivisions  of  the  sys- 
tem continually  subdivided  and  expanded,  the  probability  of 
collision  with  the  cometary  and  meteoritic  bodies  would  be- 
come greater  and  greater,  and  every  collision,  by  expanding 
the  colliding  bodies  to  still  greater  dimensions,  would  still 


344  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [186 

further  enhance  the  probability  of  such  collisions  in  the  fu- 
ture. So  that,  whatever  system  we  may  start  with,  great 
or  small,  or  swiftly  or  slowly  rotating,  we  ultimately  arrive 
at  the  same  result — at  about  the  same  state  of  matter  as 
that  with  which  we  began — a  rotating  spheroid  of  vapor. 


CHAPTER  XV 


THE  NEBULAE 


Lift  up  your  eyes  on  high  and  behold  who  hath  created 
these  things. — ISAIAH. 

The  real  presumption — I  may  almost  say  the  real  blas- 
phemy— in  this  matter  is  in  the  attempt  to  limit  the  inquiry 
into  the  causes  of  the  phenomena,  which  is  the  source  of  all 
human  blessings,  and  from  which  have  sprung  all  prosperity 
and  progress;  for,  after  all,  we  can  accomplish  comparatively 
little;  the  limited  range  of  our  own  faculties  bound  us  on 
every  side — the  field  of  our  powers  of  observation  is  small 
enough,  and  he  who  endeavors  to  narrow  the  sphere  of  our 
inquiries  is  only  pursuing  a  course  that  is  likely  to  produce 
the  greatest  harm  to  his  fellowmen.  All  human  inquiry  must 
stop  somewhere;  all  our  knowledge  and  all  our  investigation 
cannot  take  us  beyond  the  limit  set  by  the  finite  and  re- 
stricted character  of  our  faculties,  or  destroy  the  endless 
unknown,  which  accompanies,  like  its  shadow,  the  endless 
procession  of  phenomena.  So  far  as  I  can  venture  to  offer 
an  opinion  on  such  a  matter,  the  purpose  of  our  being  in 
existence,  the  highest  object  that  human  beings  can  set  be- 
fore themselves  is  not  the  pursuit  of  any  such  chimera  as 
the  annihilation  of  the  unknown;  but  it  is  simply  the  un- 
wearied endeavor  to  remove  its  boundary  a  little  farther  from 
our  little  sphere  of  action. — PROF.  HUXLEY. 

With  us,  heretical  opinions  do  not  perceptibly  gain  or  even 
lose  ground  in  each  decade  or  generation.  They  never  blaze 
out  far  and  wide,  but  continue  to  smoulder  in  the  narrow 
circle  of  thinking  and  studious  persons,  among  whom  they 
originate,  without  lighting  up  th.e  general  affairs  of  mankind 
with  either  a  true  or  deceptive  light.  ...  A  convenient 
plan  for  having  peace  in  the  intellectual  world,  and  keeping 
all  things  going  on  therein  very  much  as  they  do  already. 
But  the  price  paid  for  this  intellectual  pacification  is  the  sac- 


187]  THE  NEBULAE  345 

rifice  of  the  entire  moral  courage  of  the  human  mind.  A 
state  of  things  in  which  a  large  portion  of  the  most  active 
and  inquiring  intellects  find  it  advisable  to  keep  the  genuine 
principles  and  grounds  of  the  convictions  within  their  own 
breasts,  and  attempt,  in  what  they  address  to  the  public,  to 
fit  as  much  as  they  can  of  their  own  conclusions  to  premises 
which  they  have  virtually  renounced,  cannot  send  forth  the 
open,  fearless  characters,  and  logical  consistent  intellects 
who  once  adorned  the  thinking  world. 

—JOHN  STEWART  MILL. 

187.  The  Regular  Nebulae. — Glancing  at  the  Sidereal  Sys- 
tem, we  can  not  fail  to  observe  thousands  of  instances  con- 
firmatory of  this  conclusion  to  which  the  new  theory  has 
deductively  led  us.  Here  we  find  systems  in  all  stages  of 
subdivision  and  development,  just  as  the  theory  has  led  us  to 
expect.  There  are  regular  and  irregular,  resolvable  and  ir- 
resolvable, nebulae,  in  almost  endless  variety;  and  the  Milky 
Way,  which  the  theory  indicates  to  lie  in  the  equatorial 
plane  of  rotation  of  the  Sidereal  System,  appears  to  be  an 
intimate  mixture  of  all  these,  together  with  innumerable 
stars  of  all  orders  of  magnitude.  We  may  briefly  examine 
these  various  phenomena  to  see  what  interpretation  of  them 
the  new  theory  furnishes. 

Regarding  the  Sidereal  System  as  originally  consisting 
of  a  rotating  gaseous  spheroid  in  all  respects,  except  that 
of  magnitude,  similar  to  the  solar  spheroid,  from  which  all 
of  its  present  members  have  descended  as  the  result  of  the 
continued  process  of  evolution  in  the  past — we  shall  reason- 
ably expect  to  find  among  these  members  some  in  which, 
owing  to  their  primogeniture,  the  process  has  been  carried 
to  a  much  greater  degree  of  subdivision  than  in  our  Solar 
System;  and  this,  to  the  number  of  many  thousands,  is  just 
what  we  observe. 

Basing  our  judgment  on  all  available  evidence,  the  ir- 
resolvable nebulae  are  instances  where  this  cosmical  commi- 
nution has  been  carried  nearly  to  its  ultimate  stage.  These 
nebulae  are  either  globular  (called  planetary  nebulae),  or 
oval.  Planetary  nebulae  are  regarded  as  very  extraordinary 
objects,  presenting  round  or  slightly  oval  discs,  in  some 
cases  terminating  sharply,  in  others  bordered  with  softened 


346  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [187 

haze.  Their  light  varies  from  perfect  equability  to  a  mottled 
or  curdled  appearance,  and  from  a  faint  white  to  a  deep  blue. 
These  colors  imply  a  physical  condition  nearly  similar  to 
that  indicated  by  the  spectroscope  to  prevail  upon  the  white 
stars,  a  few  of  which  approach  to  a  faint  blue.  The  spectra 
of  the  planetary  nebulae  are  of  the  discontinuous  kind,  and 
consist  of  a  few  bright  lines,  and  their  light  is  shown  by 
Huggins  and  Lieut.  J.  Herschel  to  be  monochromatic,  or 
nearly  so;  which  are  the  accepted  indications  of  an  incan- 
descent gas. 

The  oval  nebulae  are  of  all  degrees  of  eccentricity  from 
moderately  oval  forms  to  ellipses  so  elongated  as  to  appear 
almost  linear;  the  latter,  no  doubt,  edge-views  of  still-flat- 
tened systems.  These  nebulae  evidently  correspond  to  those 
systems  in  which  the  centrifugal  tendency  of  the  original 
rotation,  and  therefore  the  amount  of  expansion  or  recession, 
was  great;  while  the  globular  or  planetary  nebulae  corre- 
spond to  those  in  which  the  centrifugal  tendency  and  con- 
sequent recession  was  small.  The  elliptic  nebulae  are  rarely 
resolvable.  In  all  of  them  the  density  increases  towards 
the  center,  and  generally,  so  far  as  can  be  judged  by  their 
telescopic  appearance,  their  internal  strata  approach  more 
nearly  to  the  spherical  form  than  their  external  strata.  Such 
of  these  as  admit  of  resolution  give  a  continuous  spectrum, 
showing  light  of  various  degrees  of  refrangibility,  and  indi- 
cating incandescent  solids  or  liquids;  while  those  that  are 
irresolvable  give  the  bright  line  spectrum  characteristic  of 
the  planetary  nebulae. 

Evidently  by  the  new  system  of  evolution  the  irresolv- 
able nebulae  are  the  oldest,  in  which  the  process  of  subdi- 
vision has  been  carried  nearly  to  its  ultimate  limit;  while 
the  more  and  more  resolvable  nebulae  are  those  in  which  the 
process  of  subdivision  has  been  less  and  less  advanced;  the 
least  resolvable  of  which  therefore  consists  of  innumerable 
starlets  or  planetoids  which  are  individually  so  small  as  to 
be  barely  discernible  in  telescopes  of  the  highest  power.  Of 
this  latter  kind  is  the  elliptic  nebula  in  the  girdle  of  Androm- 
eda which  in  a  reflecting  telescope  of  18  inches  aperture 


188]  THE  NEBULAE  347 

is  quite  irresolvable;  but  which  with  the  exquisite  defining 
power  of  the  great  achromatic  at  Cambridge,  U.  S.,  though 
not  itself  clearly  resolved,  was  found  to  be  thickly  sown  over 
with  visible  minute  stars  so  numerous  as  to  allow  of  200  be- 
ing counted  in  a  field  of  one-third  of  a  degree  in  diameter. 

By  the  current  cosmogony,  the  irresolvable  nebulae  are 
the  youngest  portions  of  the  Sidereal  System — portions  in 
which  the  primordial  "world-stuff"  is  just  aggregating  by 
gravitation  into  the  parent  spheroid  of  some  future  solar 
system;  and  the  resolvable  nebulae  are  somewhat  older 
members  in  which  the  process  of  aggregation  is  more  ad- 
vanced— the  elliptic  form  and  innumerable  minute  bodies  of 
which  they  are  composed  thus  of  course  remaining  unac- 
counted for. 

188.  The  Irregular  Nebulae. — Besides  these  nebulae  of 
regular  form  there  are  other  nebulae  of  forms  that  seem 
to  us  very  irregular.  These  are  noted  for  their  very  great 
extent,  and  they  have  also  this  one  important  characteristic 
in  common — a  location  in,  or  very  near,  the  borders  of  the 
great  Milky  Way.  Now  since  the  Milky  Way  is  supposed 
to  be  in  the  equatorial  plane  of  the  Sidereal  System,  we 
might  expect  to  meet  with  innumerable  nebulae  together 
with  stars  of  all  orders  of  magnitude,  just  as  in  the  equa- 
torial plane  of  the  Solar  System  we  meet  with  the  great 
bulk  of  the  regular  bodies  which  it  contains.  And  this  is 
just  what  we  find.  The  stars  are  indeed  numerous  here,  and 
the  vast  majority  are  both  comparatively  small  and  distant; 
indicating  that  the  process  of  subdivision  has  been  carried 
on  at  the  periphery  of  the  Sidereal  System  to  a  greater  de- 
gree than  at  the  central  regions,  just  as,  according  to  our 
theory  of  sidereal  segregation,  it  should  be.  And  in  still 
further  confirmation  of  this  view  we  observe  that  beyond  all 
of  these  stars  are  situated  the  irregular  nebulae.  Sir  John 
Herschel,  after  observing  one  of  these  nebulae  through  his 
telescope,  says:  "The  conclusion  can  hardly  be  avodied  that 
in  looking  at  it  we  see  through  and  beyond  the  Milky  Way, 
far  out  into  space,  through  a  starless  region."  Beyond,  or 
rather  in  the  outskirts  of,  the  Milky  Way,  the  nebula  un- 


348  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [188 

doubtedly  lies;  but  its  relative  farness  and  its  starless  en- 
vironment, while  they  are  suggested  naturally  enough  by  the 
utter  darkness  of  the  regions  beyond,  are  in  all  probability 
imaginary.  Moreover  these  irregular  nebulae  are  found 
chiefly  in  groups,  which  also  accords  with  the  theory;  for  it 
is  those  systems  first  originating  in  the  Sidereal  System  in 
which  the  nebulae  would  chiefly  appear;  and  these  would 
occupy  separate  spots  in  the  equatorial  plane  of  the  solar 
rotation.  The  remaining  feature  of  irregularity  of  form  may 
be  assignable  to  two  apparently  sufficient  causes;  first,  the 
vast  number  of  these  superposed  upon  one  another  in  the 
line  of  sight,  and  second,  their  immense  distance  from  us 
which  prevents  our  seeing  them  in  all  their  completeness. 
With  regard  to  the  first  cause,  Sir  John  Herschel,  speaking 
of  the  Magellanic  Clouds,  or  the  nubeculae  major  and  minor, 
visible  to  the  naked  eye  in  the  Southern  Hemisphere,  and 
which  are  probably  nothing  more  than  irregular  nebulae  in 
a  less  distant  region  from  us,  says: 

"When  examined  through  powerful  telescopes,  the  consti- 
tution of  the  nubeculae,  and  especially  of  the  nubecula  major, 
is  found  to  be  of  astonishing  complexity.  The  general  ground 
of  both  consists  of  large  tracts  and  patches  of  nebulosity 
in  every  stage  of  resolution,  from  light  irresolvable  with  18 
inches  of  reflecting  aperture,  up  to  perfectly  separated  stars 
like  the  Milky  Way.  .  .  .  But  besides  those,  there  are 
also  nebulae  in  abundance,  both  regular  and  irregular;  globu- 
lar clusters  in  every  state  of  condensation;  and  objects  of  a 
nebulous  character  quite  peculiar,  and  which  have  no  analogue 
in  any  region  of  the  heavens.  Such  is  the  concentration  of 
these  objects  that  in  the  area  occupied  by  the  nubecula  ma- 
jor not  fewer  than  278  nebulae  and  clusters  have  been  enu- 
merated, besides  50  to  60  outliers." 

It  is  this  grouping  together  in  the  immensity  of  space  to 
which  the  irregular  forms  of  all  such  nebulae  may  be  chiefly 
ascribed.  For,  however  regular  may  be  each  individual  neb- 
ula, yet  these  to  the  number  of  many  hundreds  and  possibly 
thousands,  may  be  so  arranged  naturally  as  to  present  a  fan- 
tastic or  capricious  appearance — just  as  the  configuration  of 
the  planets  of  the  Solar  System  may  never  have  a  regular 
form,  as  a  whole,  although  each  planet  is  itself  of  regular 


189]  THE  NEBULAE  349 

form  and  has  a  regular  motion  around  a  common  central  body. 

Another  circumstance  also  which  would  tend  to  render 
nebulae  amorphous,  and  especially  such  as  are  of  a  resolvable 
nature  (as  the  irregular  nebulae  almost  invariably  are  in 
whole  or  in  part),  is  that  many  of  their  component  bodies 
or  planetoids  must,  at  their  extreme  distance,  be  invisible  to 
us.  Annular  nebulae,  e.  g.,  are  probably  systems  in  which 
the  peripheral  sub-systems,  owing  to  their  expansion,  as  al- 
ready noticed,  have  collided  together,  the  resulting  vaporous 
mass  becoming  self-luminous,  and  having  so  little  cohesion 
as  to  be  distributed  over  the  entire  path  of  these  sub-sys- 
tems; while  the  inner  sub-systems  composed  of  planetoids 
which  are  not  self-luminous,  remain  invisible. 

The  spiral  nebulae  are  readily  derivable  from  the  annular, 
when  sufficient  time  is  allowed  for  many  collisions  of  the 
component  sub-systems  and  for  the  slow  gravitation  inwards 
of  the  resulting  vaporous  annuli  in  the  manner  already  de- 
scribed. Nebulous  stars  would  result  from  a  still  longer 
continuation  of  this  process,  when  the  vapors  would  nearly 
all  have  aggregated  at  the  center.  And  besides  these  it  may 
be  added  that  the  irregular  action  of  cometary  bodies  would 
obviously  constitute  a  third  cause  of  the  anomalous  forms 
which  nebulae  so  frequently  present. 

189.  Observed  Changes  in  Nebular  Forms. — In  further 
confirmation  of  these  views,  various  changes  of  appearance 
have  been  suspected  in  the  irregular  nebulae  which  seem  to 
be  clearly  attributable  to  such  relative  motions  of  the  com- 
ponent parts  as  the  theory  here  predicates.  Owing  to  their 
great  distance  from  us,  the  theoretical  slowness  of  their  an- 
gular motions,  and  the  invisibility  of  all  but  their  incandes- 
cent and  larger  components,  only  small  and  almost  imper- 
ceptible changes  in  their  appearance  are  to  be  looked  for; 
and  these,  even  in  comparatively  short  periods,  we  have  good 
reasons  for  regarding  as  actually  taking  place.  The  Magel- 
lanic  Clouds,  according  to  Sir  John  Herschel,  have  under- 
gone important  changes  during  a  lifetime.*  The  great  neb- 
ula in  Orion  is  now  generally  admitted  to  be  in  process  of 

*PM1.  Trans.,  1811. 


350  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [189 

change.  The  great  nebula  surrounding  the  variable  star,  Eta 
Argus,  is  also  subject  to  great  changes.  And  probable  move- 
ments are  shown  by  Prof.  Holden  to  take  place  in  the  Omega 
nebula.*  Prof.  Holden  says:  "These  drawings  show  that 
the  western  end  of  this  nebula  has  moved  relatively  to  its 
contained  stars  from  1832  to  1862,  and  again  from  1862  to 
1875  and  always  in  the  same  direction."  And  several  other 
instances  of  this  kind  could  be  mentioned. 

Besides  these  changes  of  nebular  form,  movements  of  neb- 
ulae as  wholes  take  place.  "Several  objects  observed  as 
nebulae  are  now  missing  from  the  heavens."  "There  are 
cases  in  which  a  nebula,  undoubtedly  such,  have  either  dis- 
appeared and  reappeared  in  the  same  place,  or  has  under- 
gone some  remarkable  changes  of  brightness;  or,  lastly,  has 
been  observed  as  a  conspicuous  object  in  a  part  of  the  heav- 
ens so  well  known  as  to  make  it  exceedingly  improbable 
that  it  should  have  escaped  all  previous  observation. "f 
These,  as  well  as  nearly  similar  phenomena  among  the  stars, 
are  very  probably  owing,  at  least  in  part,  to  the  proper  mo- 
tions of  our  own  system  and  of  the  systems  containing  these 
bodies.  Aside  from  the  rotation  of  the  Sidereal  System  as 
a  whole  (in  which,  however,  every  member  probably  has  a 
different  angular  and  absolute  velocity)  nearly  every  body 
which  that  system  contains  has  an  indefinite  number  of  minor 
rotations  as  members  of  the  various  sub-systems  of  which  the 
Sidereal  System  is  composed;  and  by  virtue  of  one  or  several 
of  these  rotations,  some  of  which  are  of  very  great  amplitude, 
the  bodies  and  ourselves  are  continually  either  approaching 
towards,  or  receding  from,  each  other.  The  approximations 
obviously  causing  the  new  appearance,  or  the  greater  bright- 
ness, of  the  bodies,  and  the  recessions  causing  their  disap- 
pearance, or  diminished  brightness.  These  phenomena  are 
commonly  ascribed  in  the  current  theory  to  practically  the 
same  causes. 

*Am.  Jour.  Sci.  and  Art,  III,  XI,  341-61 

tSir  John  Herschel,  Outlines  of  Astronomy,  Mote   (K). 


CHAPTER  XVI 


TEMPORARY  AND  VARIABLE  STARS 


Time  whose  tooth  gnaws  everything  else  is  powerless 
against  truth.— HUXLEY. 

The  strange  star,  Eta  Argus,  .  .  .  ranges  all  the  way 
from  zero  magnitude  (in  1843)  .  .  .  down  to  the  7th 
magnitude,  which  is  its  present  brightness  and  has  been  ever 
since  1865.  Between  1877  (when  it  was  observed  . 
as  of  the  4th  mag.)  and  1800,  it  oscillated  in  brightness,  so 
far  as  we  can  judge  from  the  few  observations  extant,  be- 
tween the  4th  and  2nd  mags.  About  1810,  it  rose  rapidly  in 
brightness,  and  between  1826  and  1850  it  was  never  below 
the  standard  first  mag.  When  brightest  in  1843  it  was  giving 
more  than  25,000  times  as  much  light  as  in  1865.  A  singular 
fact  is  that  the  star  is  in  the  midst  of  a  nebula  which  ap- 
parently sympathizes  with  it  to  some  extent  in  its  fluctua- 
tions.—YOUNG'S  ASTRONOMY. 

A  possible  explanation  of  most  of  the  new  and  variable 
stars  is  to  be  found  in  the  meteoritic  theory;  the  innumerable 
components  of  one  group  of  meteorites  colliding  with  those  of 
another  group  would  be  component  to  give  out  light  sufficient 
to  make  the  whole  appear  as  a  star.— J.  N.  LOCKYER. 

190.  Temporary  Stars. — But  other  phenomena  are  cur- 
rently attributed  to  other  causes  than  those  that  are  here 
indicated;  among  which  are  temporary  stars  and  variable 
stars  of  regular  periods.  Temporary  stars  are  those  which 
have  appeared  from  time  to  time  in  different  parts  of  the 
heavens,  blazing  forth  with  extraordinary  luster;  and  after 
remaining  awhile  apparently  immovable,  have  died  away  and 
left  no  trace.  According  to  Humboldt,  twenty-one  such  stars 
were  recorded  during  the  interval  134  B.  C.  to  1848  A.  D. 
Such  stars  are  recorded  to  have  appeared,  one,  125  B.  C., 
visible  in  the  daytime;  another,  389  A.  D.,  remaining  for  three 
weeks  as  bright  as  Venus  and  eventually  disappearing  entire- 
ly; others  945,  1264,  and  1572;  the  last  in  Cassiopoeia, 
studied  by  the  celebrated  Danish  astronomer,  Tycho  Brahe, 
surpassing  both  Sirius  and  Jupiter,  when  brightest,  and  being 


352  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  ]19Q 

visible  at  midday.  It  began  to  dimmish  in  December  of 
the  same  year,  and  in  March,  1574,  had  entirely  disappeared. 
Also  in  October,  1604,  a  star  of  this  kind  and  not  less  brilliant, 
burst  forth  in  the  constellation  of  Serpentarius  which  con- 
tinued visible  till  October,  1605.  In  May,  1866,  one  appeared 
in  the  Northern  Crown  exceeding  the  second  magnitude  in 
brightness.  This  star  was  spectroscopically  investigated, 
and,  according  to  Huggins,  "the  spectrum  indicated  two  dis- 
tinct sources  of  light,  each  producing  a  separate  spectrum. 
One  was  a  continuous  spectrum  crossed  by  dark  lines  similar 
to  that  yielded  by  the  Sun  and  most  of  the  stars.  The  other 
consisted  of  four  brilliantly  bright  lines.  The  first  spectrum 
showed  a  photosphere  of  cooler  vapors  giving  rise  by  absorp- 
tion to  the  dark  lines.  The  other  spectrum  showed  the  pres- 
ence of  an  intensely  luminous  gas  which  was  apparently 
hydrogen  at  a  higher  temperature  than  existed  in  the  photo- 
sphere of  the  star.* 

Now  these  phenomena  correspond  precisely  with  those  of 
a  ring-disruption  upon  some  sun  in  a  distant  region  of  the 
Sidereal  System.  Prior  to  the  disruption,  the  ring  itself  and 
its  parent  body  would  be  invisible  to  us  owing  to  the  distance, 
comparative  smalmess,  remoteness  of  relationship,  or  possib- 
ly all  three;  but  after  the  disruption,  much  of  the  ring-sub- 
stance would  be  reduced  to  its  original  vapor,  which  aggre- 
gating into  one  mass  of  intense  heat  and  luninosity,  would 
very  reasonably  become  visible  to  us.  This  is  clearly  indi- 
cated by  the  two  spectra  above  described;  the  gaseous  spec- 
trum of  bright  lines  obviously  belonging  to  the  newly  vapor- 
ized ring-substance,  and  the  spectrum  of  dark  lines  belonging 
to  the  original  sun  upon  which  the  ring  was  generated,  and 
partly,  perhaps,  to  comets  and  meteorites  originating  in  the 
ring-collapse.  These  latter  bodies,  as  already  intimated,  may 
contain  by  far  the  greater  portion  of  the  ring  substance,  and 
so  may  give  rise  to  a  separate  spectrum  of  their  own,  to  which 
that  of  the  sun  might  also  contribute.  To  the  abstraction  of 
these  bodies  from  the  general  aggregated  mass  and  their 
wandering  apart  into  distant  regions  (together  with  the  com- 
parative smallness  of  the  bodies)  would  also  be  reasonably 

*  Alexander   Winchell,    World-Life,   p.    514. 


190]  TEMPORARY   AND   VARIABLE    STARS  353 

attributable  the  gradual  waning  away  of  the  new  star.  The 
cometary  velocities,  while  really  great,  would  yet  owing  to 
their  distance,  require  months,  and  perhaps  even  years,  to 
separate  so  widely  as  to  dissipate  into  invisibility;  while, 
when  the  individual  bodies  were  apparently  close  together, 
though  really  separated  perhaps  by  planetary  distances,  the 
whole  would  be  visible  in  one  glare  as  if  produced  by  a  single 
body  at  a  distance  not  so  great.  It  was  formerly  thought 
that  these  stars  entirely  disappeared;  but,  as  a  further  con- 
firmation of  the  new  views,  "it  is  now  maintained  that  none 
of  the  temporary  stars  are  new  originations,  and  that  none  of 
them  have  disappeared  from  existence,  if  even  from  visibility. 
That  occurring  in  the  Northern  Crown  is  still  telescopically 
visible;  and  it  is  maintained  that  the  new  stars  of  Tycho  and 
Kepler  may  still  be  seen;"*  exactly  as  the  new  theory  predi- 
cates. 

The  explanations  usually  given  of  these  "temporary  stars" 
are,  (1)  Collision  of  planets  precipitated  inwards  with  their 
suns.  This,  if  possible,  would  certainly  account  for  the  sud- 
den blazing  forth  of  the  planetary  and  solar  substance  into 
vapor.  But  a  very  apparent  and  fatal  objection  to  it  is  the 
brief  duration  of  the  phenomenon;  as,  in  the  absence  of  com- 
etary and  meteoric  abstractions,  a  pair  of  united  worlds  thus 
made  incandescent  would  obviously  require  a  much  greater 
time  for  the  dissipation  of  their  heat.  (2)  Eruptive  action 
on  an  encrusting  globe,  just  as  volcanic  eruptions  take  place 
upon  our  own  world.  But  this  is  clearly  inadequate.  In 
the  first  place,  either  as  lava  or  as  gas,  it  could  hardly  be  sup- 
posed to  take  place  over  the  entire  surface  of  a  world  at  once; 
and  in  the  second  place,  the  two  spectra  observed  are  thus 
entirely  unexplained,  as  only  one  solid  body  surrounded  by  a 
luminous  gas  is  implied;  which  accounts  for  only  one  of  the 
observed  spectra.  (3)  Collision  of  a  darkened  star  with  a 
cometary  body.  But  this  is  open  to  the  same  objection  as 
explanation  (1),  and  both  explanations  (1)  and  (3)  are  open 
to  the  second  objection  to  explanation  (2)  as  accounting  for 
one  half  of  the  observed  phenomena.  (4)  Collision  of  two 

*Alexander  Winchell,  World-Life,  p.  515. 


354  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [192 

meteoritic  streams;  which,  however,  hardly  accounts  for  the 
continuous,  dark-line  spectrum. 

191.  Double,    Triple,    and    Multiple    Stars. — Moreover   we 
have  in  other  regions  further  evidence  supporting  the  views 
here  advanced.       The  double,  triple,  and  multiple  stars  are 
simply  incandescent  members  of  minor  systems,  the  remain- 
ing members  of  which  are  invisible.     Double  stars  are  fre- 
quently observed,  numbering  between  4,000  and  5,000,  while 
triple  and  multiple  stars  are  rare,  numbering  only  about  53 
in  all.       The  former  would  evidently  be  composed  of  a  cen- 
tral sun  and  a  new  planet  of  recent  origin  revolving  around  it, 
several  of  them  having  been  traced  through  complete  revolu- 
tions, and  some  of  their  periods  or  years  varying  from  36  to 
1,200  pf  ours.       The  triple  and  the  multiple  stars  similarly 
imply  the  nearly  contemporary  origin  of  bodies  corresponding 
to  both  planets  and  satellites  in  the  same  system,  which  seems 
to  be  fully  corroborated  by  the  extreme  minuteness  of  all  but 
one  or  two — sun  and  planet — of  the  component  bodies. 

192.  Variable  Stars  of  Short  Period. — We  are  thus  natur- 
ally brought  round  to  the  phenomena  of  the  periodical  stars, 
which  in  all  probability  will  be  found  to  have  their  true  ex- 
planation based  upon  the  same  facts.       These  stars   alter- 
nately increase  and  diminish  in  brilliancy,  the  changes  hav- 
ing fixed  periods  varying  from  two  days  to  about  a  year.    The 
star  Algol,  or  Beta  Persei,  e.  g.,  is  usually  visible  as  a  star 
of  the  second  magnitude  and  continues  so  for  2  days  13  % 
hours,  when  it  suddenly  begins  to  diminish  in  splendour,  and 
in  about  3^    hours  is  reduced  to  the  fourth  magnitude  at 
which  it  continues  about  15  minutes.       It  then  begins  to  in- 
crease and  in  3%  hours  more  is  restored  to  its  usual  bright- 
ness, going  through  all  its  changes  in  2  days  20  hours,  54.7 
seconds.       Goodricke,  the  discoverer  of  these  changes,  took 
the  view  that  they  were  caused  by  the  revolution  round  some 
star  of  some  opaque  body  which,  when  interposed  between  us 
and  the  star,  cut  off  a  large  portion  of  its  light.       This  ex- 
planation does  not  appear  to  incur  any  serious  objection,  and 
is  quite  in  harmony  with  the  new  theory.      If  it  be  the  true 
one,  however,  the  velocity  of  the  opaque  body  around  Algol 


192]  TEMPORARY   AND   VARIABLE    STARS  355 

must  be  very  great,  or  the  real  dimensions  of  Algol  and  of 
its  opaque  planet  comparatively  small.  Another  explanation 
suggested  by  the  new  theory  seems  to  account  for  it  equally 
well,  or  perhaps  better.  This  explanation  is  that,  instead 
of  an  opaque  body  revolving  round  a  self-luminous  star,  the 
two  bodies  are  self-luminous,  the  smaller  revolving  round 
the  larger  in  an  orbit  the  plane  of  which  is  coincident  with 
the  line  of  sight.  Two  minima  and  two  maxima  would  thus 
occur  in  each  revolution,  the  former  occurring  at  each  con- 
junction of  the  revolving  body  with  the  Earth,  and  the  latter 
at  each  quadrature.  The  distance  between  the  bodies  in  the 
latter  case,  though  really  great,  perhaps,  would  appear  so 
minute,  owing  to  the  distance  of  the  observer,  that  the  two 
bodies  at  their  greatest  angular  distance  apart  would  be  in- 
distinguishable one  from  the  other.  So  that  the  effect  of 
their  separation  from  one  another  in  the  line  of  sight  would 
be  in  effect  to  increase  the  magnitude  of  an  apparently  single 
body.  The  short  minimum  of  15  minutes,  the  long  maximum 
of  some  61  hours,  and  the  comparatively  short  periods  of 
waning  arid  brightening,  each  3^  hours,  appear  to  be  thus 
fully  accounted  for,  all  in  a  semi-revolution;  the  waning  and 
brightening  periods  being  so  short  because  the  motion  of  the 
revolving  body  to  and  from  minimum  is  at  right  angles  to  the 
line  of  sight,  and  therefore  apparently  rapid,  and  the  maxi- 
mum period  so  long  because  the  motion  of  the  body  at  that 
time  is  nearly  parallel  to  the  line  of  sight,  and  because  the 
amount  of  apparent  separation  or  approximation  of  the  bodies 
with  respect  to  that  line  is  imperceptibly  small,  except  in 
comparatively  short  times  at  the  beginning  and  closing  of 
each  semi-revolution. 

The  same  explanation  also  applies  to  Delta  in  the  constel- 
lation Cepheus,  its  period  being  5  days,  8  hours  and  47  2/3 
minutes,  of  which  the  interval  between  minimum  and  maxi- 
mum is  only  1  day  and  14  hours.  The  periodical  star  Beta 
Lyrae,  appears  to  admit  of  no  other  explanation  but  this,  as 
it  has  two  minima  and  two  maxima,  owing  evidently  to  a  con- 
siderable inclination  of  the  orbit-plane  of  the  revolving  body 
to  the  line  of  sight,  so  that  the  latter  approaches  near,  but 


356  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [193 

not  to,  the  disc  of  the  central  star.  Its  period  was  formerly 
stated  at  between  6  and  7  days,  as  its  light  certainly  under- 
went a  remarkable  diminution"  and  recovery  in  that  time. 
But  the  more  accurate  observations  of  M.  Argelander  have 
led  him  to  conclude  the  time-period  to  be  12  days,  21  hours, 
53  minutes,  10  seconds,  in  which  a  double  maximum  and  min- 
imum takes  place.* 

193.  Secular  Variation  of  Periodic  Stars. — In  addition  to 
this  subdivision  of  the  whole  interval  of  change  (correspond- 
ing to  an  entire  revolution)  into  two  semi-periods  (corres- 
ponding to  semi-revolutions),  we  are  presented,  not  only  in 
the  case  of  this  star,  but  in  the  case  of  about  every  period- 
ical star,  with  another  instance  of  slow  alteration  of  period, 
which  has  all  the  appearance  of  being  itself  periodical.  This 
alteration  is  the  gradual  lengthening  of  the  period,  slow  at 
first,  then  much  more  rapid,  then  slow  again,  followed  by  a 
dimunition  of  the  period  in  all  probability  through  the  same 
gradations.  In  the  case  of  the  last  mentioned  star,  the  per- 
iod of  variation  was  increasing  from  1784,  the  epoch  of  its 
discovery,  to  the  year  1840,  after  which  it  began  to  diminish. 
In  the  case  of  Algol,  a  comparison  of  the  earlier  with  the 
more  recent  observations  indicates  a  dimunition  of  the  per- 
iodic time,  not  uniformly  progressive,  but  "actually  proceed- 
ing with  accelerated  rapidity,  which,  however,  will  probably 
not  continue,  but,  like  other  cyclical  combinations  in  astron- 
omy will  by  degrees  relax  and  then  be  changed  into  an  in- 
crease according  to  the  laws  of  periodicity  which,  as  well  as 
their  causes,  remain  to  be  discovered." 

It  seems  strange  that  the  simple  explanation  of  this  slow 
alteration  suggested  even  by  the  analogous  phenomena  of 
the  Solar  System,  has  not  previously  occurred  to  investiga- 
tors of  this  subject.  All  astronomers  are  aware  that  no  body 
in  the  whole  visible  heavens  is  at  rest.  Observation  has 
demonstrated  the  occurrence  of  movements  even  of  the  fixed 
stars  in  directions  at  right  angles  to  the  line  of  sight,  and 
the  spectroscope  reveals  to  us  even  the  actual  rate  of  their 
motions  in  that  line;  which  appears  to  be  quite  comparable 

*Astron.   Nach.,   Nos.   417,    455,   472. 


194]  TEMPORARY   AND   VARIABLE    STARS  357 

with  that  of  the  Earth  around  the  Sun.  Now  granting  that 
the  variable  stars  are  approaching  towards,  or  receding  from, 
us,  in  virtue  of  the  proper  motions  of  these  bodies,  or  of  the 
Solar  System,  or  both  together — the  light  which  travels  be- 
tween us  and  them  at  the  rate  of  about  190,000  miles  per  sec- 
ond would  come  to  us  more  slowly  when  they  are  receding 
than  when  they  are  approaching.  For  every  190,000  miles 
they  recede  from  us,  the  duration  of  their  phenomena  would 
apparently,  though  not  really,  lengthen  one  second,  and  for 
every  190,000  miles  they  approach,  the  same  would  be  simi- 
larly diminished.  We  know  this  to  be  the  fact  in  the  case 
of  the  transit-periods  of  Jupiter's  satellites,  which  are  found 
to  lengthen  slowly  and  gradually  when  the  Earth  recedes 
from,  and  to  dimmish  slowly  when  it  approaches  towards, 
that  planet;  the  total  variation  of  all  the  transit  periods  oc- 
curring between  opposite  points  of  the  Earth's  orbit,  or  in  the 
course  of  about  six  mouths'  time,  being  about  17  minutes. 
And  there  appears  no  reason  whatever  to  think  that  the  slow 
alterations  of  changes  of  the  periodic  stars  (in  the  case  of 
which,  however,  the  velocity  of  the  motion  causing  the  varia- 
tion is  not  so  great  as  that  of  the  Earth's  motion  around  the 
Sun)  are  not  attributable  to  the  same  cause. 

194.  Variable  Stars  of  Long  Period. — There  are  some  per- 
iodic stars  the  phenomena  of  which,  however,  can  not  be  due 
to  the  revolution  of  one  incandescent  body  around  another; 
these  in  every  instance  being  comparatively  long  periods. 
The  most  remarkable  of  these  is  the  star  Omicron  in  the  con- 
stellation Cetus,  or  Mira  Ceti,  its  period  being  331  days,  8 
hours,  4  minutes,  16  seconds.  At  its  greatest  brightness  it 
is  sometimes  equal  to  a  star  of  the  second  magnitude.  After 
about  a  fortnight,  it  begins  to  decrease  in  luster,  and  at  the 
end  of  five  months  becomes  invisible  to  the  naked  eye,  in 
which  state  it  remains  about  five  months  more,  finally  bright- 
ening up  as  before  in  the  remainder  of  the  period.  It  does 
not  always  return  to  the  same  degree  of  brightness,  however, 
nor  increase  and  diminish  by  the  same  gradations.  Of  these 
phenomena  there  appears  to  be  little  or  no  explanation,  other 
than  that  they  are,  as  the  name  Mira  implies,  strange  and 


358  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [194 

wonderful.  In  the  light  of  the  new  theory,  they  are  clearly 
referable  to  a  system  nearly  in  its  ultimate  stage  of  evolu- 
tion. The  collisions  which  we  have  already  noticed  as  tak- 
ing place  between  the  expanding  sub-systems  into  which  any 
particular  system  would  be  divided,  would,  in  their  initial 
stage,  very  probably  not  occur  at  one  time  only,  but  at  many 
successive  times;  and  at  each  collision  a  portion  of  the  col- 
liding systems  would  be  vaporized.  The  resulting  incan- 
descent vapor,  while  it  was  collected  at  one  spot,  would  be 
brightly  visible  to  us;  but  as  it  was  dissipated  between  the 
paths  of  the  colliding  bodies  (in  which  it  would  ultimately 
appear,  after  many  reinforcements,  as  an  annular  nebula), 
it  would  become  less  and  less  apparent  and  would  finally  dif- 
fuse and  dwindle  into  invisibility.  This  theory  appears  to 
explain  fully  the  facts  of  the  case;  and  no  other  theory  ap- 
pears to  be  tenable.  A  falling  planet,  or  colliding  comet,  is 
manifestly  precluded  by  the  regularity  of  the  occurrence; 
and  Zollner's  theory  of  rotation  of  a  body  having  sides  of 
different  degrees  of  luminosity,  while  it  provides  for  the 
regularity  of  the  occurrence,  is  in  turn  precluded  by  the  brief 
duration  of  brightness  as  compared  with  the  long  period  of 
invisibility,  as  well  as  by  the  suddenness  with  which  max- 
imum brilliance  is  attained,  while  the  waning  of  that  bril- 
liancy requires  nearly  half  of  the  entire  period.  Goodricke's 
theory  of  occultation  by  an  opaque  body  revolving  about  an 
incandesc'ent  star  is,  for  the  same  reason,  entirely  inadmis- 
sible. 

The  most  reasonable  and  by  far  the  best  supported  by 
spectroscopic  and  other  evidence,  is  the  explanation  (very 
similar  to  the  one  here  suggested)  offered  of  these  phenomena 
by  J.  Norman  Lockyer  in  a  series  of  papers  in  volumes  39 
and  40  of  Nature.  In  these  papers  he  accounts  for  the  phe- 
nomena of  periodic  stars  by  collisions  with  meteoric  swarms. 
The  regularity  would  thus  be  owing  to  the  passage  of  the 
body  presenting  the  changes  through  a  swarm  of  meteorites, 
whose  orbit  intersects  its  own,  the  collisions  with  the  meteor- 
ites at  the  point  of  intersection  causing  the  evoluion  of  in- 
candescent vapors  to  which  the  brightness  is  due.  This 


194]  TEMPORARY   AND   VARIABLE    STARS  359 

explanation,  with  little  exceptions,  is  about  the  same  as  the 
new  theory  suggests.  The  periodicity -by  the  latter  would 
be  determined  by  the  synodic  period  of  an  expanding  usb- 
system  of  planetoids  with  a  neighboring  expanding  sub-sys- 
tem around  a  common  center  of  revolution;  the  collisions 
occurring  when  the  inner  sub-system  would  overtake  the 
outer.  The  explanation  of  meteoritic  swarms  appears,  how- 
ever, to  be  open  to  one  or  two  slight  objections  from  which 
the  latter  is  free.  In  the  first  place,  the  number  of  meteor- 
ites encountered  during  every  passage  of  the  body  through 
their  orbit  would  not  reasonably  be  the  same,  and,  as  in  the 
case  of  our  own  world  passing  . through  the  orbits  of  the 
August  and  November  swarms,  it  is  even  probable  that  at 
times,  scarcely  any  meteorites  whatever  would  be  encoun- 
tered. Thus  the  maximum  brightness  of  the  body  would 
vary  from  the  minimum  up  to  the  highest  magnitudes,  and 
the  intensities  of  any  two  maxima  would  be  hardly  ever  alike. 
And  in  the  second  place,  it  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  prob- 
able that  the  orbital  paths  of  the  swarm  and  of  the  body 
would  continue  to  intersect  one  another  for  such  long  periods 
of  time;  for  as  the  two  would  probably  belong  to  different 
systems  of  some  order  or  other,  they  would  obviously  part 
company  owing  to  the  divergence  of  the  wider  motions  of 
the  different  systems  to  which  they  would  belong. 


CHAPTER  XVII 


ULTIMATE  CONCEPTIONS  OF  MAGNITUDE 
AND  VELOCITY 


All  the  various  kinds  of  matter,  all  the  various  so-called 
chemical  elements,  may  be  built  up  in  some  way  of  the  same 
fundamental  substance  (protyle).  .  .  .  "It  is  ever  the 
desire  of  the  human  mind  to  see  all  the  phenomena  of  nature 
bound  by  one  connecting  chain,  and  the  forging  of  this  chain 
can  be  realized  only  gradually  and  after  great  labor  in  the 
laboratories  of  science."— THOMAS  PRESTON. 

Not  only  the  great  thought  of  the  original  unity  of  the 
Cosmos  and  the  development  of  all  phenomena  out  of  the  all- 
pervading  primitive  matter  found  expression  in  Anaximander, 
but  he  even  enunciated  the  bold  idea  of  countless  worlds  in 
a  periodic  alternation  of  birth  and  death.  Many  other  great 
philosophers  of  classical  antiquity,  especially  Democritus, 
Heraclitus,  and  Empedocles,  had,  in  the  same  or  an  analog- 
ous sense,  a  profound  conception  of  this  unity  of  Nature  and 
God.  .  .  .  Also  the  famous  Roman  poet  Lucretius  Carus 
in  his  poem  "De  Rerum  Natura." — PROF.  ERNST  HAECKEL, 

If  we  imagine  very  minute  rapidly-spinning  fly-wheels  or 
gyrostats  spread  through  the  medium,  they  will  retain  their 
motion  forever,  in  the  absence  of  friction  on  their  axles,  and 
they  will  thus  form  a  concrete  dynamical  illustration  of  a 
type  of  elasticity  which  arises  solely  from  inertia;  and  this 
illustration  will  be  of  great  use  in  realizing  some  of  the  pe- 
culiarities of  a  related  type,  which  I  believe  can  be  thorough- 
ly established  as  the  actual  type  of  elasticity  transmitting  all 
radiation,  whether  luminous  and  thermal  or  electrical — for 
they  are  all  one  and  the  same — through  the  ultimate  medium 
of  fluid  character  of  which  the  vortices  constitute  matter. 

—DR.  JOSEPH  LARMOR. 

Every  atom  is  a  standing  miracle  and  endowed  with  such 
qualities  as  could  not  be  impressed  upon  it  by  a  Power  and 
Wisdom  less  than  infinite. — ADDISON. 

195.  Nature  of  the  Ultimate  Subdivisions  of  Matter. — 
Now  these  processes  of  subdivision  which  are  taking  place 
in  the  nebulae  and  the  periodic  stars  are  but  continuations  of 
the  processes  which  are  taking  place  in  our  own  Solar  Sys- 


195]  ULTIMATE  CONCEPTIONS  OF  MAGNITUDE,   ETC.  361 

tern.  The  latter  will  be  reduced  by  the  continuation  of  the 
process  now  going  on,  to  the  nebular  stage;  the  nebulae  will 
be  still  further  comminuted,  expanded,  and  amalgamated, 
until  finally  we  have  a  universal  nebula  silimar  in  all  respects 
save  magnitude  and  density  to  the  planetary  nabulae  which 
we  now  see  in  the  heavens  and  similar  in  all  respects  to  the 
universal  nebula  with  which  we  started. 

Thus  briefly  and  very  imperfectly  has  been  traced  the 
segregation  of  any  particular  original  spheriod  having  a  cer- 
tain amount  of  axial  rotation  into  subordinate  spheroids  each 
revolving  round  the  nucleus  of  the  original  spheroid  in  the 
plane  of  its  equator;  the  segregation  of  each  of  these  in  a 
similar  manner  into  smaller  spheroids  revolving  round  both 
the  subordinate  spheroids  and  the  genetic  spheroid;  and  so 
on  until  a  stage  is  arrived  at  nearly  like  that  with  which  we 
began.  Now  if  this  process  had  taken  place  in  a  regular 
manner,  without  interference  from  neighboring  parts,  or  from 
erratic  bodies,  the  motions  of  the  ultimate  components  of  the 
ultimate  spheroid  would  be  of  a  very  complex  nature.  But 
obviously  even  in  this  case,  all  of  the  ultimate  components 
would  not  possess  the  same  number  of  motions  or  velocity  of 
rotation.  For,  in  general,  the  central  components  being  the 
most  recently  formed  would  have  comparatively  simple  mo- 
tions (i.  e.,  around  only  a  few  different  centers),  the  velocity 
of  which,  however,  would  be  comparatively  great;  while  the 
peripheral  components,  being  the  older,  would  have  motions 
of  greater  complexity  (or  round  many  different  centers),  but 
of  a  less  degree  of  velocity. 

But  it  does  not  seem  probable  that,  in  a  spheroid  thus 
reduced  to  its  ultimate  constituents,  motions  of  very  great 
complexity  would  be  permanent.  The  intricate  network  of 
connexions  would  undoubtedly  resist  complicated  movements 
of  parts  having  such  extremely  small  masses;  and  would 
eventually  resolve  itself  into  comparatively  simple  bonds  be- 
tween contiguous  components  and  between  contiguous  groups 
of  components.  For,  as  the  subdivision  continued,  the  mass 
(and  therefore  in  general  the  momentum)  of  each  component 
would  decrease  while  at  the  same  time  the  massiveness  of 


362  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [195 

the  connexions  through  which  the  components  have  to  move 
would  increase  (owing  to  the  continual  formation  of  new 
ones) ;  and  thus  would  a  more  and  more  powerful  brake  be 
put  upon  complex  motions  of  the  parts  as  the  subdivision 
proceeds. 

The  result,  then,  would  be  an  arrest  of  motions  around 
distant  subordinate  centers;  the  arrested  motions  probably 
going  to  augment  the  equal  angular  rotation  of  the  resulting 
spheroid  as  a  whole.  The  connexions  of  the  arrested  com- 
ponents would  perhaps  be  appropriated  in  part  by  the  con- 
nexions and  the  connective  atmospheres  of  neighboring  com- 
ponents. But  these  disused  connexions  would  chiefly  exist, 
in  all  probability,  as  an  independent  and  special  form  of  mat- 
ter; consideration  of  which'  belongs  in  the  domains  of  elec- 
tricity and  magnetism,  which  itself  would  require  almost  an 
entire  volume.  The  lowest  ultimate  component  thus  arrived 
at  would  be  a  primary  body  incapable  of  further  subdivision 
with  the  rate  of  rotation  which  it  then  possesses,  and  one  or 
more  bodies  connected  with  it  and  circulating  round  it. 
Higher  forms  of  ultimate  components  also  might  consist  of  a 
similar  central  body  around  which  circulates  a  second  sim- 
ilar body  which  is  itself  a  center  for  a  third  circulating  body, 
or  even  with  one  or  more  of  these  bodies  themselves  com- 
pound. 

That  the  circulating  motions  of  these  components  would 
be  arrested  by  the  connective  substance  would  not  follow 
from  the  same  causes  that  arrested  the  motions  round  more 
distant  centers,  for  the  reason  that  whereas  the  latter  would 
be  resisted  by  a  multitude  of  connexions  subtending  between 
all  bodies  among  which  they  moved,  the  former  would  be  re- 
sisted by  only  the  few  connexions  between  its  own  primary 
and  the  neighboring  primaries. 

If  instead  of  a  system  in  which  no  interference  by  expan- 
sion of  component  parts,  or  action  of  erratic  bodies,  was  sup- 
posed to  take  place,  we  consider  the  case  of  a  system  in  which 
expansive  interference  would  occur,  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
same  motions  would  be  arrested  by  it  as  by  the  eventful 
resistance  of  the  connective  substance,  and  no  other.  In  the 


195]  ULTIMATE  CONCEPTIONS  OF   MAGNITUDE,   ETC.  363 

collision  of  an  inner  with  an  outer  sub-system  revolving 
around  the  same  center,  the  orbital  revolution  of  the  latter 
would  be  increased  and  that  the  former  diminished;  while  it 
is  always  the  wider  of  the  revolutions  in  the  colliding  sub- 
systems themselves  that  would  be  thus  destroyed.  So  that, 
in  either  case,  we  arrive  at  the  same  result — an  accelerated, 
equable  rotation  of  the  resulting  spheroid  as  a  whole;  and  a 
simple,  together  with  some  slightly  compound,  systemic 
motions  of  its  ultimate  components. 

And  considering  also  the  agency  of  erratic  bodies,  such 
as  comets  and  meteorites,  we  can  still  ascribe  nothing  to 
them  that  would  seriously  interfere  with  the  same  result. 
As  for  the  resulting  spheroid  as  a  whole,  as  these  bodies 
would  fall  upon  it  about  equally  from  all  directions,  they 
could  influence  it  in  any  particular  direction  but  little,  while 
the  larger  intermediate  motions  would  suffer  at  least  partial 
arrestation.  And  as  for  the  motions  of  the  ultimate  com- 
ponents, they  can  only  be  met  and  arrested  by  the  motions 
of  bodies  of  a  magnitude  similar  to  their  own,  and  even  then, 
perhaps,  but  rarely,  if  ever. 

The  collisions  of  masses  of  matter,  if  they  occur  with  the 
tremendous  energy  implied  by  planetary  velocities,  would 
indeed,  not  only  arrest  the  motions  of  a  portion  of  the  elemen- 
tary systems,  but  also  give  rise  to  their  motion  in  a  reversed 
direction  with  a  still  greater  energy;  while  the  motion  of 
another  portion  would  not  suffer  arrest,  but  acceleration 
wholly.  In  mechanical  collisions  of  any  kind  there  can  be 
but  comparatively  an  extremely  small  number  of  elementary 
bodies  be  brought  to  rest;  first,  because  it  is  highly  improb- 
able that  the  velocity  of  the  colliding  masses  would  be  exact- 
ly equal  to  that  of  the  bodies  of  the  elementary  systems;  and, 
second,  because  even  if  the  velocities  were  exactly  equal,  it  is 
equally  improbable  that  the  direction  of  the  collision  and 
that  of  the  elementary  rotation  would  be  exactly  opposite. 
And  the  very  few  elementary  bodies  which  might  be  thus 
brought  to  rest  would  be  again  immediately  started  in  motion 
by  their  connexions  with  the  accelerated  adjoining  bodies. 
Thus  the  result  arrived  at  by  the  regular  process  of  cosmical 


364  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [196 

segregation  remains  practically  unaffected  by  the  various 
accidental  contingencies,  such  as  systemic  interference,  com- 
etary  and  meteoritic  impacts,  ring-disruptions,  etc.,  to  which 
that  process  may  be  subject. 

The  ultimate  element  of  matter  in  its  simplest  form  at 
which  we  have  thus  arrived  would  consist  of  a  central  body, 
a  secondary  body  revolving  around  it,  a  primary  connexion 
joining  the  two,  and  various  secondary  connexions  joining 
the  bodies  to  neighboring  elements.  Moreover,  each  of  the 
two  bodies,  according  to  analogy,  would  have  a  connective 
atmosphere  which  would  permit  the  expansion  of  the  element 
when  the  velocity  of  revolution  of  the  secondary  body  was 
increased;  and  finally  each  of  the  elementary  bodies  would 
also  have  a  certain  amount  of  axial  rotation.  This  axial 
rotation  of  the  primary  body,  if  it  should  be  the  remnant  of 
an  originally  large  spheroid,  would  be  extremely  rapid;  and 
the  more  rapid  the  rotation  of  the  primary  body,  caeteris  par- 
ibus,  the  more  rapid  would  be  the  revolution  of  the  derived 
secondary  body  also.  What  it  is  that  performs  this  rotation 
and  revolution,  we  do  not  know  and  may  never  know,  nor 
even  conceive  or  imagine;  and  it  seems  as  yet  only  futile  to 
speculate  about  it.  The  ultimate  nature  of  the  elementary 
connexions  seems  equally  as  inscrutable  as  that  of  the 
elementary  bodies.  To  both  entities  the  name  of  matter  or 
substance  may  properly  apply;  but  the  connexion,  though 
not  theoretically  any  more  indivisible  than  the  body,  may, 
perhaps,  be  regarded  as  perfectly  homogeneous,  whereas  its 
analogue,  the  planetary  connexion,  can  only  be  regarded  as 
composed  of  simple  and  compound  elements. 

196.  The  Cosmic  Chain  of  Causation — Kepler's  Third  Law. 
— But  though  nothing  can  be  premised  of  the  nature  of  the 
stuff  of  the  ultimate  elements,  something  can  be  deduced 
from  the  present  stage  of  cosmical  evolution  regarding  their 
dimensions  and  the  speeds  of  their  motions,  and  this,  as  inti- 
mated some  pages  back,  is  to  be  the  final  and  perhaps  the 
severest  test  of  the  new  views  here  advanced,  as  well  as  of 
intellectual  integrity  and  loyalty  regarding  them. 

"In  a  lecture  delivered  at  the  Royal  Institution  last  May 


196]  ULTIMATE  CONCEPTIONS  OF  MAGNITUDE,   ETC.  365 

(1889),  Prof.  Mendeleef  attempted  to  show  that  there  existed 
an  analogy  between  the  constitution  of  the  stellar  universe 
and  that  of  matter,  as  we  know  it  on  the  surface  of  the  earth, 
and  that  from  the  motions  of  the  heavenly  bodies  down  to  the 
minutest  interatomic  movement  in  chemical  reactions,  the 
third  law  of  Newton's  holds  good."* 

It  is  not  the  third  law  of  Newton  that  is  to  be  applied  here, 
however,  but  the  third  law  of  Kepler.  There  is  no  question 
of  this  law  as  governing  the  motions  and  distances  of  the 
planets;  and  what  is  now  to  be  done  is  to  carry  it,  according 
to  the  idea  of  one  grand  chain  of  causation  connecting  all  the 
phenomena  of  the  universe,  from  the  present  motions  and 
dimensions  of  the  Solar  System  down  to  the  motions  and 
dimensions  of  the  molecule  and  the  sub-atoms. 

According  to  the  third  law  of  Kepler,  the  squares  of  the 
periods,  P  and  P',  of  two  planets  vary  as  the  cubes  of  their 
distances,  D  and  D',  respectively.  That  is 

p2  :  p'2  —  D3  :  D'3 

But  P  —  2^0 /V  and  P'  =  2VD'/V',  where  V  and  V  are  the 
respective  velocities  of  the  two  planets  in  their  orbits. 
Whence,  from  the  preceding  equation,  47r2D2D'3/V2  = 


47r2D'2D3/V'2,  or  D'V/2  =  DV2  and  V  ==  WD/D'. 

Sir  William  Thomson  calculated  that  if  a  drop  of  water 
were  expanded  to  the  size  of  the  Earth,  the  atoms  in  it  would 
appear  of  a  size  somewhere  between  that  of  small  shot  and 
that  of  a  cricket  ball;  which  would  make  the  radius  of  an 
atom  about  10-8cm.  Now  let  Kepler's  law  be  carried  inwards 
through  the  innumerable  successive  intermediate  generations 
to  this  atomic  distance  from  the  center  in  the  case  of  each 
principal  body  of  the  Solar  System.  It  will  be  convenient 
to  take  the  radius  of  a  planet  (in  round  numbers)  for  the 
distance  D,  and  for  V  such  a  velocity  as  will  balance  by  cen- 
trifugal force  the  planet's  attraction  (or,  according  to  the  new 
theory,  the  elastic  strength  of  the  planet's  primary  connexion) 
at  this  distance.  D'  will  be  the  atomic  radius,  10-8cm.,  or 
62X10-15  mile,  which  will  be  the  same  in  each  case;  and  V, 
the  result  sought,  will  be  the  velocity  which  Kepler's  third 

*Wm.  Anderson,  Nature,  40.  509. 


366  THE    CONNECTIVE    TH.EORY  [196 

law  requires  with  the  given  atomic  radius  vector.      Following 
are  the  results: 

D  V  D'                   V 
Miles.     Miles  per  sec.  Miles.       Miles  per  sec. 

Mercury,    1500  2  62X10-15          3X10" 

Venus,  Earth  ....     4000  5  13X108 

Mars,     2300  2.28  "                   4X108 

Jupiter,    45000  26  "               221  XlO8 

Saturn,    38000  15  117 XlO8 

Uranus,   17000  8.8  46 XlO8 

Neptune,   19000  9.3  51  XlO8 

Sun,    440000  270  7200  X  10s 

Moon,    1000  1  1X108 

We  see  from  this  that  the  ultimate  velocity  decreases 
with  the  size  of  the  body  started  with,  and  also  that  the 
least  velocity  thus  arrived  at  is  500  times  that  of  light,  while 
the  greatest  velocity  is  4,000,000  times  that  of  light;  the  ve- 
locity derived  from  the  Sun  being  about  100  times  greater 
than  the  average  derived  from  the  planets  and  that  from  the 
Moon  50  times  less;  with  an  almost  infinite  variety  of  slower 
and  slower  motions  inferable  from  sub-satellites,  sub-sub-sat- 
ellite, etc.,  systems.  But  the  ultimate  atomic  radii  of  revolu- 
tion are  no  doubt  as  variable  as  the  ultimate  velocities;  so 
that,  instead  of  the  uniform  radius  above  mentioned,  the 
atom  itself  must  be  penetrated  far  within  into  the  domains 
of  the  electron;  involving  still  greater  velocities  (in  some 
cases)  and  still  more  minute  radii  of  action. 

Do  these  extreme  velocities  at  these  almost  infinitesimal 
distances  seem  absurd  and  incredible?  They  are  truly  as- 
tounding; but,  when  certain  modifications  are  taken  into 
consideration,  they  are  not  only  not  incredible,  but  apparent- 
ly demanded  by  the  actual  facts.  One  of  these  modifications 
is  the  fact  that  the  molecular  velocities  here  calculated  are 
not  those  which  exist  now,  but  only  those  which  will  exist 
for  the  next  grand  round  of  cosmical  evolution.  One  grand 
round  or  cycle  extends  from  one  phase  of  cosmical  evolution 
to  the  next  similar  phase — from  one  universal  spheroid  of 
homogenous  vapor  down  through  all  the  stages  of  systems, 
suns,  planets,  satellites,  etc.,  to  a  state  of  homogenous  vapor 
similar  to  that  with  which  the  cycle  began;  which  would 


196]  ULTIMATE   CONCEPTIONS  OF  MAGNITUDE,   ETC.  367 

constitute  the  beginning  of  the  next  grand  round.  And,  so 
far  as  can  now  be  seen,  the  sole  product  and  effect  of  this 
cyclical  process,  this  seeming  eternity  of  consolidation,  seg- 
regation, and  grinding  of  matter  back  again  to  its  ultimate 
elements,  constituting  one  grand  round — is  nothing  more  than 
a  gain  of  MOTION,  with  probably  a  correspondingly  greater 
degree  of  comminution,  or  fineness,  of  the  resulting  ele- 
ments. The  ultimate  velocities  existing  today  are  the  result, 
not  of  the  present  cycle  of  evolution,  but  of  the  preceding 
cycles.  There  are  many  circumstances  to  consider  in  deter- 
mining the  difference  between  the  present  velocities  and 
those  figured  out  above  for  the  next  cycle.  It  will  here  be 
merely  assumed  that  the  former,  while  considerably  less,  are 
yet  not  immensely  different  from  the  latter. 

That  there  must  be  today  extreme  molecular  velocities 
coupled  with  ultra-microscopic  radii  of  revolution  is  manifest 
from  various  phenomena.  We  know  that  electrons  are  some- 
times shot  out  of  atoms  with  velocities  approximating  that 
of  light;  and  electrons  themselves,  being  thousands  of  times 
smaller  than  atoms,  must  contain  much  more  rapid  motions. 
We  know  also  that  the  spectrum  of  a  single  atom — more 
correctly,  perhaps,  simply  the  spectrum  of  the  simplest  of 
the  many  different  elements — consists  of  some  1600  lines  of 
different  refrangibilities  (Art.  70e) ;  each  line  ,no  doubt,  rep- 
resenting a  motion  of  a  different  magnitude  and  velocity. 
How  else  is  it  possible  or  conceivable  to  account  for  spectral 
phenomena  except  in  this  way?  And  though  the  speed  of 
light  is  the  greatest  of  which  we  now  have  any  conception, 
yet  even  the  speed  of  light  depends  upon  wavelength  and 
frequency;  which  generally  implies  a  still  smaller  amplitude 
of  oscillation,  which  last,  in  the  light  of  the  new  theory, 
would  be  the  orbital  diameter  of  the  revolving  particle  whose 
oscillations  give  rise  to  light.  Now  the  wavelength  of  yel- 
low light  is  0.0005895  millimetre,  and  the  frequency  of  the 
oscillation  is  some  five  hundred  millions  of  millions  per 
second;  the  product  of  these  two  factors  being  the  velocity 
of  light,  or  about  190,000  miles  per  second. 

Now,  by  Kepler's  third  law,  having  the  period  of  atomic 


368  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  ,  [196 

revolution,  5X10-14  second,  as  just  stated,  we  may  find  a  cor- 
responding distance  by  using  any  other  heavenly  body  whose 
mass  and  dimensions  are  known.  Each  different  body,  how- 
ever, will  give  a  different  value  to  this  distance.  The 
Sun,  for  example,  gives  us  D  =  440,000  miles,  P  =  1000  sec- 
onds (=the  Sun's  circumference  divided  by  270,  the  velocity 
in  miles  per  second  required  to  balance  the  Sun's  attraction  at 
distance  D),  and  P'  =  5X10-"  second;  which  gives  D'  by 
simple  proportion,  according  to  Kepler's  law,  equal  to  0.023 
cm.  It  is  obvious,  however,  that  this  value  of  the  radial 
distance  corresponding  to  this  atomic  period  is  much  too 
large,  being  some  400  times  the  wavelength;  whereas  the 
latter  should  be  at  least  twice  as  great  as  the  former.  Ap- 
parently the  phenomena  of  yellow  light  could  not,  therefore, 
have  been  derived  in  a  direct  line  from  such  body  as  the 
Sun.  Taking  next  the  Earth,  D  =  4000  miles,  P  =  5000  sec- 
onds, and  P'  =  5X10-"  second,  as  before;  which  gives  D'  = 
0.00039  cm.,  a  radius  still  some  seven  times  greater  than 
the  wavelength.  Next,  for  the  Moon,  D  may  be  taken  at 
1000  miles,  P  at  6300  seconds,  and  P'  5X10-14  second;  giving 
D'  z=  0.00008  cm.,  which  is  still  larger  than  the  wavelength. 
Finally,  taking  a  body  some  300  miles  in  diameter  and  of 
such  mass  that  the  period  of  a  particle  at  its  surface  is  10,- 
000  seconds,  we  have  D  =  150  miles,  P  =  10,000  seconds,  P' 
=  5X10-14  second;  giving  D'  =  0.000008  cm.,  which  is  only 
about  one-seventh  of  the  wavelength,  and  gives  the  velocity  of 
light  for  that  of  the  revolving  atomic  particle  at  this  radius 
and  the  given  atomic  period. 

This  may  interpreted  that  the  speed  of  revolution  is 
transmitted  by  one  revolving  particle  to  a  neighboring  one, 
by  means  of  the  secondary  connexions  between  them;  the 
ratio  of  the  amplitude  (=  twice  the  radius)  to  the  wave- 
length indicating  that,  in  this  particular  instance,  the  distance 
between  the  centers  of  the  revolving  units  is  between  three 
and  four  times  their  dimensions.  As  the  radius  becomes 
smaller  and  smaller  than  this,  the  period  would  also  become 
smaller  and  consequently  also  the  wavelength,  and  the  fre- 


196]  ULTIMATE   CONCEPTIONS  OF  MAGNITUDE,   ETC.  369 

quency  would  be  greater;  thus  apparently  preserving  the 
same  velocity  for  light-phenomena  of  various  wavelengths 
and  frequencies,  at  least  within  limits.  But  the  extreme  ve- 
locities derived  linearly  from  such  bodies  as  the  Sun,  when 
brought  down  to  atomic  dimensions,  would  be  incommensur- 
able with  light  phenomena  and  apparently  would  not  be 
transmitted  by  them.  Of  some  such  nature  would  probably 
be  the  X-rays,  which  are  "harder"  and  more  penetrating 
than  light  motions.  The  indications  are,  however,  that  many 
of  these  motions  are  absolutely  beyond  us;  are  wholly  out 
of  tune  with  the  mechanism  of  our  organization,  and  more 
lost  to  our  ken  even  than  light  is  to  the  totally  blind.  There 
would  also  be  many  slower  motions,  derived  from  the  smaller 
laterally  descended  heavenly  bodies  in  apparently  endless 
variety.  Possibly  some  of  these  would  merge  down  into 
the  phenomena  of  sound,  taste  and  smell,  as  some  certainly 
do  into  those  of  heat;  but  undoubtedly  many,  probably  most, 
of  these  motions,  especially  the  finer  and  most  rapid,  would 
be,  in  varying  degrees,  incommensurable  with  our  mental- 
ity. Here  the  idea  expressed  in  Buchner's  quotation  at  the 
head  of  chapter  XIV  applies  with  peculiar  fitness. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  atomic  radius  at  which  the 
velocity  of  light  was  above  arrived  at  is  considerably  greater 
than  that  assigned  by  Sir  William  Thompson  for  the  atom. 
Of  course  the  new  theory  implies  much  smaller  unit  dimen- 
sions than  those  of  Sir  William  Thomson.  But  the  fact  that 
a  radius  of  some  10-5  cm.  may  possibly  account  for  the  phe- 
nomena of  light  suggests  that  it  may  not  be  impossible  that 
the  size  of  the  atom  has  been  underestimated.  As  some 
corroboration  of  this,  the  Brownian  movement  was  recently 
observed  with  the  ordinary  eye-piece  of  a  microscope  replaced 
by  another  complete  microscope,  giving  thus  a  linear  mag- 
nification of  over  20,000. 

"Under  these  conditions  the  Brownian  movement  proved 
to  consist  of  a  double  motion:  the  first  with  an  amplitude 
of  the  order  of  a  micron,  the  other  about  l/50th  of  this."* 

This  at  least  indicates  how  molecular  structure  is  com- 
posed of  motions  of  various  orders  of  magnitude,  as  the  new 

*F.  Bourieres,  Nature,   92,   521. 


370  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [197 

theory  suggests.  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  all  of  these 
deductions  are  subject  to  the  imporant  modification  men- 
tioned in  this  article. 

197.  The  Theory  of  Gravity  and  Atomic  Velocities. — If 
the  law  of  gravitation  governed  the  subsequent  stages  of  cos- 
mical  evolution,  these  atomic  velocities  would,  of  course,  be 
impossible.  And  the  general  acceptance  of  the  theory  of 
gravity  may  not  improbably  thus  account  for  the  present  ap- 
parently unphilosophical  kinetic  view  that  atoms  merely  os- 
cillate or  vibrate  linearly,  instead  of  circularly,  like  a  planet. 
According  to  that  theory,  as  the  central  body  around  which 
the  planets  revolve  continually  decreased  in  mass  through  con- 
tinual subdivision,  the  central  restraining  force  would  contin- 
ually diminish,  at  the  same  time  that  the  centrifugal  force  con- 
tinually increased  through  diminished  distance  and  increased 
velocity.  The  geometrically  diminishing  planetary  distances 
inwards  would,  in  a  degree,  compensate  the  decreasing  mass 
of  the  central  body,  if  it  were  not  itself  compensated  by  the 
greater  centrifugal  force  generated  in  the  smaller  orbit,  aside 
from  the  greater  absolute  velocity  implied  by  Kepler's  third 
law.  Even  with  the  aid  of  the  law  of  equal  areas  in  equal 
times,  the  theory  of  gravity  r'equires  a  practically  constant 
central  mass  or  attraction;  whereas  in  this  case  the  central 
mass  is  continually  diminishing  from  planetary  magnitudes 
down  to  the  almost  infinitesimal  magnitude  of  an  electron. 
Also  according  to  the  theory  of  gravity,  the  diminishing  size 
of  the  planets  themselves,  as  the  process  of  subdivision  con- 
tinued, would  make  no  difference  in  the  power  of  the  cen- 
tral force  necessary  to  restrain  them.  This  is  not  the  case 
with  the  connective  theory,  in  which  the  restraining  force 
is  the  elasticity  of  the  bond  which  holds  the  revolving  planet 
to  its  sun;  which  itself  depends  upon  the  magnitude  of  the 
revolving  body.  In  other  words,  the  connective  theory  has 
the  advantage  that  the  diminishing  mass  of  the  central  body 
does  not  diminish  the  restraining  power,  as  in  the  theory  of 
gravity,  because,  in  the  former,  the  strength  of  the  bond 
is  determined  largely  by  the  mass  of  its  planet  and  the 


198]  ULTIMATE  CONCEPTIONS  OF  MAGNITUDE,   ETC.  371 

amount  of  the  very  strain  which  it  is  required  to  withstand 
In  its  formative  stage. 

Unless  molecular  orbital  motions  at  such  velocities  be 
denied  entirely,  these  phenomena  also  constitute  a  serious 
objection  to  the  theory  of  gravity  along  with  the  many 
others  mentioned  in  the  first  part  of  this  work;  the  phenom- 
ena and  the  theory  being  certainly  inconsistent.  For,  ac- 
cording to  that  theory,  the  radial  strain  upon  the  revolving 
body  does  not  depend  upon  the  mass  of  the  latter,  but  on  the 
mass  of  the  central  body — which  is  entirely  inconsistent  with 
atomic  phenomena;  whereas,  by  the  new  theory,  the  radial 
strain  does  depend  upon  the  magnitude  of  the  revolving  body 
and  not  upon  that  of  the  central  body — which  is  in  harmony 
with  the  observed  facts. 

198.  Weight  or  Mass,  the  Measure  of  Energy. — Here 
again  arises  the  question — Is  it  really  the  mass  of  a  planet 
which  determines  its  centrifugal  strain  or  its  weight?  It 
will  be  remembered  this  subject  was  referred  to  before  (Art. 
26),  and  the  arguments  there  employed  ned  not  be  repeated 
here.  They  seem  plainly  to  show  that  weight  is  the  main 
factor  in  determining  centrifugal  strain  rather  than  mass. 
Just  one  further  argument  will  here  be  referred  to. 

The  energy  of  a  moving  mass,  in  absolute  units,  is  said 
to  be  equal  to  half  the  mass  multiplied  by  the  square  of  the 
velocity;  or,  as  it  is  commonly  written,  MV2/2.  Now  con- 
sider a  pound  mass  falling  with  a  velocity  of  100  feet  per 
second  at  the  Earth's  surafce.  This,  according  to  the  above 
formula,  would  be  equal  to  5000  absolute  units  of  energy. 
Then  consider  the  same  mass  as  falling  with  the  same  ve- 
locity at  the  Sun's  surface.  Instead  of  one  pound,  this  mass 
would  now  be  27  pounds,  and  according  to  the  formula  MV2/2, 
the  27  pounds  multiplied  by  5000  would  exactly  equal  the  one 
pound  multiplied  by  5000;  in  other  words,  the  27  pounds 
weight  striking  a  solid  obstruction  on  the  Sun  would  give 
exactly  the  same  amount  of  heat  or  any  other  kind  of  energy 
as  the  one  pound  weight  striking  a  solid  obstruction  on  the 
Earth  with  the  same  velocity!  If  this  be  true,  then  MV2  is 
the  true  formula;  if  it  be  not  true,  then  WV2  is  the  correct 


372  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [199 

formula  for  general  use,  and  MV2  is  only  locally  applicable. 

We  know  that  there  are  molecular  motions  the  velocity 
of  which  is  of  the  same  order  as  that  of  light,  because  elec- 
trons are  projected  with  this  v*elocity  out  of  molecules  and 
atoms;  and  it  is  now  conceded  by  excellent  authorities  that 
the  phenomena  can  only  be  accounted  for  by  an  orbital  mo- 
tion around  some  central  entity  in  the  system  from  which 
it  has  been  projected.  And  the  tremendous  centrifugal  force 
ascribable  to  even  the  velocity  of  light,  confined  in  orbits  so 
extremely  minute,  seems  explicable  only  on  the  assumption 
that  the  strain  of  the  revolving  body  diminishes  with  its  di- 
minishing weight  owing  to  the  decreased  mass  of  the  central 
body  around  which  it  circulates ;  so  that,  though  weight  could 
never  disappear  entirely,  it  ultimately  would  become  so  small 
as  to  fully  compensate  the  enormous  mechanical  forces 
otherwise  implied  by  the  velocities  of  molecular  and  atomic 
systems.  By  the  new  theory,  the  centrifugal  strain  would 
be  diminished  not  only  by  the  diminishing  mass  of  the  re- 
volving body  but  also  by  the  diminishing  weight  of  that  mass 
in  consequence  of  the  diminishing  mass  of  the  central  body. 

199.  Results  of  a  Grand  Round  of  Cosmical  Evolution. — 
It  may  now  be  said  that  we  have  taken  a  panoramic  view 
(though  undoubtedly  an  extremely  incomplete  one)  of  one 
Grand  Round  of  cosmical  evolution.  How  many  similar 
Rounds  the  Cosmos  had  previously  undergone  we  probably 
can  never  tell,  any  more  than  we  can  tell  how  many  may 
take  place  in  the  future.  It  does  not  now  seem  conceivable 
that  the  ultimate  elements  of  matter  could  have  been  evolved 
out  of  a  perfectly  homogeneous  magma  wholly  without  parts 
or  divisions  in  such  a  cosmical  process  as  is  now  taking  place, 
because  there  would  be  lacking  the  individual  components 
which,  in  the  surface-contractions,  are  to  approach  one  an- 
other. In  fact  it  appears  we  have  now  arrived  at  the  "most 
general  conception"  in  which  all  other  conceptions  must  be  in- 
cluded and  which,  therefore,  must  itself  remain  inexplicable — 
at  least  until  we  know  somewhat  more  about  the  universe  than- 
we  do  at  present.  The  nature  of  the  process  by  which  Mat- 
ter first  became  subdivided  into  component  elements  is  just 


199]          ULTIMATE  CONCEPTIONS  OF  MAGNITUDE,   ETC.  373 

as  inscrutable  as  the  nature  of  the  stuff  of  which  the  ele- 
mentary bodies  and  connexions  consist.  These  are  the  pres- 
ent limits  of  our  knowledge — a  Universal  Whole  of  nearly 
homogeneous  vapor,  made  up  of  distinct  component  parts, 
and  the  Sub-Atom,  or  ultimate  component  part  itself.  Beyond 
either  of  these  limits,  our  intellect  cannot  soar,  for  nothing 
there  appears  to  render  it  support  or  rest. 

But  premising  these  limits,  we  can  trace  with  a  tolerable 
degree  of  clearness  the  processes  which  would  naturally  take 
place  until  almost  an  eternity  of  evolution  brings  us  again 
to  a  state  of  things  apparently  similar  in  all  respects  to  that 
with  which  we  started.  This  vast  cycle  of  evolution,  how- 
ever, would  surely  cause  some  change  in  the  pre-existing 
state  of  things.  As  already  intimated,  some  results  would 
be  thus  attained,  which  would  be  more  and  more  enhanced 
by  succeeding  cycles.  What,  then,  are  these  results?  From 
what  we  have  already  gone  over  we  can,  with  a  fair  degree 
of  confidence,  deduce  the  following:  first,  either  an  original 
rotation,  or  an  acceleration  of  the  previous  rotation,  of  the 
Whole  (Art.  90) ;  second,  an  expansion  of  the  Whole  out- 
wards into  space  owing  to  this  increase  of  its  axial  rotation 
(Art.  80,  c) ;  third,  an  acceleration  of  the  rotation  of  the  ul- 
timate primary  components  of  the  Whole  (Art.  80,  e) ;  fourth, 
greater  subdivision  and  fineness  of  the  ultimate  primary  com- 
ponents owing  to  acceleration  of  their  rotation;  and  fifth,  an 
accelerated  revolution  of  the  secondary  components  around 
the  primary  components  owing  to  accelerated  rotation 
and  finer  subdivision  of  the  latter,  according  to  Kepler's 
third  law.  This  acceleration  of  the  previous  rotation  of  the 
Whole,  mentioned  in  the  latter  portion  of  the  first  result, 
would  naturally  follow  from  the  intermediate  stages  leading 
to  the  third  and  fifth  results. 

These,  then,  are  our  most  general  deductions.  The  sole  pro- 
ducts of  the  myriads  of  ages  of  evolution  and  dissolution,  de- 
velopment and  destruction,  pleasure  and  pain,  life  and  death, 
of  any  one  Round  of  cosmical  segregation  are  a  mere  gain 
of  Motion  in  Time  and  an  increased  encroachment  of  Matter 


374  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [200 

upon   Space — as  compared  with  these  elements  in  the  pre- 
ceding Round. 

200.  The  Constitution  of  Matter. — We  are  thus  led  by  the 
new  theory  in  one  consecutive  process  from  suns  and  planets 
down  to  the  domains  of  the  molecule  and  the  electron.  There 
now  open  before  us  the"  phenomena  of  heat,  light,  electricity, 
magnetism,  sensation,  and  even  life  itself.  The  grosser  phe- 
nomena of  the  universe  are  seen  to  blend  gradually  into  its 
most  refined  phenomena;  and  Prof.  Huxley's  words  apply 
here  with  peculiar  fitness : 

"Living  matter  differs  from  other  matter  in  degree  and  not 
in  kind;  the  microcosm  repeats  the  macrocosm;  and  one  chain 
kind;  the  microcosm  repeats  the  microcosm;  and  one  chain 
of  causation  connects  the  nebulous  origin  of  suns  and  plan- 
etary systems  with  the  protoplasmic  foundations  of  life  and 
organization."* 

For  obvious  reasons,  it  will  be  impossible  here  to  follow 
the  new  theory  into  these  various  branches  of  microsmic  phe- 
nomena. The  treatment  of  even  the  grosser  phenomenon 
thmselves  could  not  be  entred  into  fully,  but  merely  suffi- 
ciently indicated  to  give  an  intelligent  idea  of  them.  It  may 
be  remarked,  however,  that  the  constitution  of  mater  accord- 
ing to  the  new  theory  is  really  not  so  easy  to  comprehend  as  it 
may  at  first  sight  seem.  ,  The  almost  inconceivably  great 
velocities  in  ultra-microscopic  orbits,  no  doubt,  have  powerful 
effects  which  we  can  yet  hardly  fathom  because  we  cannot 
imitate  either  the  magnitudes  or  the  motions.  The  gyro- 
scope has  revealed  to  us  some  curious  effects  of  circular 
motion,  which  were  absolutely  unknown  to  us  be- 
fore. But  the  molecules  and  the  sub-atoms  are  gy- 
roscopes of  almost  infinitely  more  rapid  rotation  of 
almost  infinitely  various  magnitudes  and  bound  to  one  an- 
other by  both  real  and  potential  connections.  We  can  dimly 
imagine  how  the  smaller  gyroscopes  may  fit  in  among  the 
larger,  and  be  held  there  in  a  firm  structure  by  virtue  of  their 
rapid  rotations.  We  can  conceive  how  bodies  composed  of 
very  small  gyroscopes  with  the  most  rapid  rotations,  on  the 
average,  would  be  the  harder  and  more  permanent;  while 

*Humboldt  Library  of  Science,  6,  352. 


200]  ULTIMATE  CONCEPTIONS  OF  MAGNITUDE,   ETC.  375 

those  composed  of  the  wider  and  slower  rotations  would  be 
more  easily  decomposed  to  unite  again  with  different  con- 
stituents of  other  bodies  in  chemical  combinations.  We  can 
understand  how  certain  kinds  of  light  rays  having  motions 
conmmensurable  with  those  of  certain  bodies  can  affect  the 
constitution  of  these  bodies  by  changing  some  of  their  mo- 
tions. And  we  can  faintly  comprehend  how  a  body  composed 
of  many  different  units  of  many  different  rates  and  ranges 
of  motion,  compressed  and  locked  together  by  virtue  of  their 
gyroscopic  properites,  may  sometimes  be  so  delicately  bal- 
anced that  a  small  disturbance  by  an  external  commensurate 
motion  may  unlock  the  combination  which  holds  the  con- 
stituents together,  and  the  tremendous  energy  bound  up  in 
the  expelled  and  the  expelling  components  become  partially 
manifst  as  an  explosion.  It  is  still  easier  to  idealize  the  heat 
of  chemical  change  as  a  modification  of  pre-existing  molec- 
ular motions,  which  in  turn  modifies  the  molecular  motions 
of  thermometers  or  of  the  organs  of  sensation;  and  the  con- 
duction of  heat  as  an  approximation  of  the  planes  of  molec- 
ular motions  into  coincidence  with  a  certain  direction,  while 
no  heat  would  be  transmitted  in  a  direction  perpendicular 
to  the  plane  of  rotation.  We  can  conceive  that  heat  and 
light  are  both  mere  differences  of  pre-existing  motions  faith- 
fully transmitted  by  the  ethereal  molecular  rotations;  either 
accelerations  with  wider  range  of  slow  laterally  derived  ro- 
tations, or  retardations  with  wider  range  of  rapid  linearly 
derived  rotations. 

And  we  can  conceive  of  no  other  way  of  explaining  the 
enormous  number  of  lines  in  each  of  the  various  spectra  than 
that  each  line  repersents  a  circular  motion  of  different  mag- 
nitude and  velocity,  and  therefore  of  different  refrangibility. 
"It  was  the  orbital  movement  of  the  electrons  in  the  atoms 
to  which  .  .  .  Storey  attributed  in  1891  the  spectral 
lines  and  their  various  singularities."* 

By  this  theory,  it  is  not  differences  of  intrinsic  material 
qualities  which  determine  the  differences  between  the  ele- 
mentary substances,  but  differences  of  degree  and  complex- 

*Nature,  87,  51. 


376  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [200 

ity  of  motion.  What  it  is  that  moves,  wo  do  not  know,  only 
that  it  possesses  some  mass  and  inertia;  motion  is  all  the 
rest.  A  drop  of  water,  if  it  has  sufficient  speed,  will  pene- 
trate a  steel  plate.  Straws  and  feathers,  driven  by  cyclonic 
storms,  have  been  known  to  pierce  the  bark  and  trunks  of 
trees.  A  swiftly  spinning  round  sheet  of  paper  acts  like  a 
circular  saw,  and  discs  of  soft  iron  in  rapid  rotation  cut  the 
hardest  steel.  A  flexible  chain,  twisting  rapidly  around  its 
length  becomes  rigid  and  stands  on  end  like  a  pole.  And 
Lord  Kelvin  constructed  a  spring  balance  of  nothing  but  rigid 
bodies  in  spinning  motion. 

A  sling,  revolved  slowly,  permits  the  passage  through  its 
plane  of  rotation  of  small  projected  bodies  practically  with- 
out hindrance,  but  if  revolved  with  sufficient  rapidity,  would 
reflect  back  a  bullet,  or  even  light.  The  same  thing  pre- 
cisely is  true  of  molecular  motions.  The  breaking  of  a  piece 
of  iron  is  caused  by  the  rupture  of  the  primary  and  second- 
ary molecular  connexions  along  the  break.  Myriads  of  mole- 
cules and  sub-molecules  are  still  spinning  with  inscrutable 
velocities  along  the  boundaries  of  the  fragments,  to  which 
alone  their  hardness,  color,  etc.,  is  due;  and  only  by  modify- 
ing these  motions,  to  the  limited  extent  which  is  possible 
for  us,  can  we  change  these  properties. 

Light  is  composed  of  a  multitude  of  different  motions, 
the  most  rapid  of  which  is  occasionally  commensurable  with 
some  of  the  atomic  motions  of  matter  and  modifies  the  latter 
motions  so  much  as  to  cause  the  ejection  of  electrons;  and 
it  has  been  shown  that  the  shorter  the  wavelength  causing 
the  ejection,  the  greater  the  velocity  of  the  ejected  electron, 
just  as  according  to  theory  it  should  be.  X-radiation,  how- 
ever, causes  the  ejection  of  much  greater  numbers  of  elec- 
trons having  still  greater  speeds;  and  the  reason  why  this 
radiation  can  penetrate  bodies  impervious  to  light  is  that  the 
more  rapid  motions  and  smaller  radii  of  the  former  are  more 
commensurable  with  the  motions  of  ordinary  opaque  bodies 
than  light  motions  and  radii  are.  The  recent  "quantum" 
theory  of  energy  is  readily  explicable  by  the  circular  atomic 
motions,  each  rotation  yielding  a  certain  quantity  of  energy 


200]  ULTIMATE  CONCEPTIONS  OF  MAGNITUDE,  ETC.  377 

separable  from  the  preceding  or  the  following  rotation,  just 
like  the  motion  of  a  piston. 

The  more  recent  dynamical  theories  of  the  constitution  of 
matter  are  very  nearly  in  harmony  with  these  views.  Lar- 
mor,  having  extended  Sir  William  Thomson's  vortex-ring  hy- 
pothesis into  "orbital  motions  of  electrons  in  the  atom,"  Prof. 
Tait  objected  that  such  theories  reduce  phenomena  to  mere 
difference-effects, 

"thereby  implying  the  presence  of  stores  of  energy  abso- 
lutely gigantic  in  comparison  with  anything  hitherto  ob- 
served, or  even  suspected  to  exist  in  the  universe;  and  there- 
fore demanding  the  most  delicate  adjustments,  not  merely  to 
maintain  the  conservation  of  energy  which  we  observe,  but  to 
prevent  the  whole  solar  and  stellar  systems  from  being  in- 
stantaneously scattered  in  fragments  through  space."* 

But  the  objection  really  proves  the  theory;  for  such  "in- 
stantaneously scattered  fragments  through  space,"  on  a  small 
scale,  (in  the  form  of  explosions)  actually  transpire  occa- 
sionally, and  requires  such  stores  of  energy  to  explain  them 
just  as  much  as  if  such  instances  were  more  general;  are 
indeed  wholly  inexplicable  by  any  other  theory  because  noth- 
ing less  than  such  gigantic  stores  of  energy  can  account  for 
them.  Moreover  there  are  gigantic  stores  of  such  energy 
still  untapped,  which  are  not  so  delicately  adjusted,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  firmly  bound;  which  some  day,  however,  we 
may  become  intelligent  enough  to  be  able  to  unlock  and  draw 
upon  for  our  comfort,  convenience,  and  power. 

The  following  extracts  from  a  recent  resume  of  modern 
ideas  on  the  constitution  of  matter,  by  Jean  Becquerel,  are 
exactly  in  harmony  with  the  ultimate  results  to  which  the 
connective  theory  has  led  us: 

"The  volume  of  an  atom  is  sufficient  to  contain  billions 
on  billions  of  electrons,  but  as  its  mass  indicates  that  it  con- 
tains at  most  a  few  thousands,  it  is  certain  that  the  electrons 
are  at  enormous  distances  from  each  other  in  comparison 
with  their  dimensions.  We  might  liken  them  to  a  swarm 
of  gnats  gravitating  about  in  the  dome  of  a  cathedral.  . 

"We  know  today  that  radio-active  substances  undergo  an 
evolution  in  which  there  appears  a  whole  series  of  more  or 
less  ephemeral  bodies  whose  duration  of  existence  may  be  as 

*Properties  of  Matter,  London,  1885,  Art.  164. 


378  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [200 

small  as  a  few  days,  or  even  a  few  seconds,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  emanation  of  actinium.  All  these  bodies  are  new  ele- 
iments. 

"These  transformations  are*  veritable  transmutations. 
They  are  not  qhemica!  decompositions.  They  appear  to  be 
independent  of  temperature;  they  bring  into  play  a  consid- 
erable amount  of  energy;  for  instance,  the  emanation  of  ra- 
dium is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  capable  of  setting  free  2,500,000 
times  as  much  energy  as  the  explosion  of  a  mixture  of  hy- 
drogen and  oxygen  of  equal  volume.  . 

"Sir  William  Ramsay  at  present  is  carrying  out  some  re- 
markable experiments.  He  has  announced  the  transmuta- 
tion of  copper  into  potasium,  sodium,  and  helium  under  the 
action  of  the  concentrated  energy  which  the  radium  emana- 
tion brings  to  bear  upon  them.  In  some  recent  experiments, 
which  appear  to  be  beyond  criticism,  he  has  attained  the 
transmutatioin  into  carbon  of  silicon,  titanium,  zirconium, 
lead,  and  thorium.  All  these  bodies  belong  in  the  same  col- 
umn in  Mendelejeff's  table.  ... 

"It  is  probable  that  all  matter  is  undergoing  a  process  of 
evolution.  The  slowness  of  the  transformation,  however,  or 
the  rarity  of  conditions  favorable  to  quick  change  gives  an 
illusion  of  stability."* 

That  2,500,000  times  the  energy  manifested  in  the  explo- 
sion of  oxygen  and  hydrogen  is  given  out  by  an  equal  vol- 
ume of  radium  admits  of  no  other  conceivable  explanation 
than  the  extreme  velocities  of  molecular  orbital  motions  de- 
ductively arrived  at  by  the  new  theory.  But,  nevertheless, 
much  of  the  mechanism  of  matter  we  cannot  as  yet  hope  to 
fathom,  because  two  essential  elements  of  this  mechanism — 
extremely  great  velocity  coupled  with  extremely  minute  mag- 
nitude— lie  wholly  beyond  our  experience. 

As  to  whether  the  density  of  the  ether,  or  connective  at- 
mosphere, is  very  small,  according  to  Sir  William  Thomson 
and  Mendelejeff,  or  comparable  to  that  of  ordinary  matter, 
as  others  hold,  the  preponderance  of  evidence  appears  to 
point  to  the  former  view.  That  the  ethereal  density  is  mil- 
lions of  times  that  of  lead  or  platinum,  as  recently  taught 
by  Dr.  Oliver  Lodge,  seems  to  be  absolutely  precluded  by 
the  Earth  carrying  the  ether  along  with  it  in  its  orbital  mo- 
tion, as  well  as  by  the  phenomena  of  refraction  and  resist- 
ance. 

*Publication  2024,  Smith.  Tnst.,  pp.  288-9. 


201]  ULTIMATE  CONCEPTIONS  OF  MAGNITUDE,  ETC.  379 

201.  Connective  Resistance  to  the  Motions  of  the  Heaven- 
ly Bodies. — There  is  but  one  thing  further  that  will  here  en- 
gage our  attention,  and  that  is  the  resistance  which  the  con- 
nective substance  must  surely  offer  in  some  degree  or  other 
to  the  motions  of  the  heavenly  bodies.  Of  course  the  re- 
sistance would  not  be  greater  in  the  case  of  the  connective 
substance  than  in  would  be  in  the  case  of  the  ethereal  me- 
dium of  the  present  theory.  In  either  case  friction  of  some 
kind  seems  unavoidable  when  a  body  passes  through  a  mate- 
rial medium.  It  is  true  that  dense  bodies  sometimes  pass 
through  other  dense  bodies  with  surprising  velocity  and  much 
less  friction  than  would  naturally  be  expected — such  as  rings 
of  colored  water  shot  through  a  tank  of  clear  water  with  a 
velocity  of  about  two  metres  per  second;  maintaining  at  the 
same  time  their  form  and  orientation  even  in  passing  through 
thin  textures  suspended  in  the  tank.*  Also  a  vacuum  ap- 
pears to  offer  no  resistance  to  a  moving  body,  though  the 
density  of  the  ethereal  substance  within  it  is  still  undimin- 
ished.  Nevertheless,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  a  body  moving 
through  even  an  ethereal  substance  without  some  friction, 
however  small.  And  though  all  the  planetary  motions  seem 
unabated  by  it  during  all  recorded  time,  still  its  existence  ap- 
parently cannot  logically  be  denied. 

But  if  the  friction  cannot  be  denied,  then  it  remains  to  be 
accounted  for;  and  one  seemingly  not  impossible  way  of  ac- 
counting for  it  is  as  follows: 

It  is  generally  conceded  that  the  cord  which  confines  a 
revolving  body  to  a  circular  path  does  not  affect  the  motion 
of  the  body  in  that  path.  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  does  not 
the  action  of  the  cord  quantitively  modify  the  actual  path 
which  the  circulating  body  pursues?  It  is  true  that  a  pull 
acting  upon  a  body  at  right  angles  to  the  direction  in  which 
it  is  moving  would  neither  increases  nor  diminish  the  quan- 
tity of  its  motion  in  that  direction.  But  since  the  pull 
changes  the  direction  of  the  motion,  it  seems  to  follow  from 
this  very  fact  that,  in  the  case  of  rectangular  motion,  the 
path  of  the  body  in  a  unit  of  time,  would  be  greater  in  the 

*Nature,   88,  464-5. 


380 


THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY 


[201 


changed  than  in  the  unchanged  direction.  If  the  projectile 
motion  of  the  body  in  a  unit  of  time  were  such  as  to  make 
it  describe  the  path  a  b,  and  tne  body  were  subjected  to  a 
pull  which,  during  that  time,  would  cause  it  to  move  a  dis- 
tance a  d,  at  right  angles  to  a  b,  then  does  it  not  clearly 


follow,  from  the  composition  of  forces,  that  the  body  would 
describe,  in  the  same  unit  of  time,  the  path  a  c,  or  the  diag- 
onal of  the  rectangle  of  which  a  b  and  a  d  are  the  sides? 
And  if  the  inward  pull  upon  the  body  has  thus  caused  it  to 
describe  a  longer  path  in  a  unit  of  time  than  it  would  de- 
scribe in  the  absence  of  that  pull,  has  not  that  pull,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  actually  increased  the  absolute  velocity  of  the 
body?  In  fact  would  not  the  a  b  of  the  second  unit  of  time, 
be  greater  than  the  a  b  of  the  first  unit,  in  consequence? 
And  since  the  inward  pull  operates  upon  the  body  contin- 
ually, it  would  thus  follow  that  the  absolute  motion  of  the 
body  in  its  circular  path,  other  things  being  equal,  would  be 
continually  increased.  And  the  explanation  here  suggested 
is  that  approximately  what  the  resistance  of  the  medium 
diminishes  the  absolute  motion  of  the  body,  the  radial  pulling 
of  the  cord  increases  it. 

In  corroboration  at  least  of  an  appropriate  equivalence  of 
the  two  opposing  tendencies,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  while 


202]  RETROSPECT  381 

an  outer  planet  moves  in  a  less  dense  medium  than  an  inner 
planet,  its  radial  pull,  on  the  other  hand,  is  also  less;  and 
the  inner  planet  moving  through  the  greater  density  has  a 
relatively  great  radial  pull  to  compensate  for  the  greater 
density  of  the  medium.  Of  course  this  greater  radial  pull 
on  the  inner  planet  would  not  fully  compensate  for  the  greater 
density  of  the  medium,  if  the  resistance  of  the  latter  varies 
as  in  gross  matter,  or  matter  as  we  are  sensible  of  it.  In 
other  words,  an  increase  of  density  of  the  connective  sub- 
stance does  not  necessarily  imply  a  proportional  increase  in 
the  resistance  it  would  offer  to  moving  bodies.  The  resist- 
ance would  obviously  be  greater  in  the  greater  density,  but 
very  probably  in  a  smaller  ratio.  And  thus,  perhaps,  even 
the  exact  equivalence  of  the  resistance  offered  by  the  con- 
nective medium  to  the  absolute  motion  of  a  planet  and  the  as- 
sistance of  that  motion  by  the  radial  pull  may  in  all  cases  be 
continually  maintained. 

202.  Retrospect. — To  summarize  the  results  of  this  in- 
vestigation, as  it  has  been  carried  out,  would  be  little  less 
than  a  repetition  of  what  has  already  been  said.  Only  the 
more  important  results  have  been  given,  and  these  in  the 
briefest  possible  form  which  would  convey  them  to  the  read- 
er's mind.  The  entire  work  is  little  more  than  a  summary 
of  the  more  detailed  investigations  necessarily  implied;  and 
a  summary  would  be  scarcely  more  than  a  mere  recapitula- 
tion of  the  subjects  discussed.  Even  such  a  summary,  how- 
ever, being  possibly  of  some  value  in  calling  to  mind  once 
more  the  salient  facts  discussed,  may  now  close  this  inves- 
tigation. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  a  cursory  survey  has  been  made 
of  the  progress  of  physical  inquiry  in  the  past,  from  the 
crudest  fancies  of  the  savage  to  the  highly  abstract  con- 
ceptions of  Newton  and  Laplace.  And  from  this  it  was  ob- 
served that  the  history  of  physical  astronomy  is  merely  a 
recital  of  the  general  belief  in  some  conception  of  the  mech- 
anism of  the  heavens,  the  more  careful  examination  of  this 
conception  after  a  time  proving  it  to  be  erroneous,  and  of 
its  consequent  rejection  and  replacement  by  a  new  concep- 


382  THE   CONNECTIVE   THEORY  [202 

tion,  in  turn  generally  received,  in  turn  eventually  rejected 
like  its  predecessor,  and  in  turn  replaced  by  still  another  con- 
ception. The  last  of  this  series  of  conceptions  is  that  of 
Newton  as  modified  by  Laplace;  and,  in  accordance  with 
precedent,  this  conception  has  been  examined  much  in  the 
same  manner  that  each  of  its  predecessors  has  been  exam- 
ined. 

Commencing  with  the  main  principle  of  the  Newtonian 
theory,  it  was  found  that  even  the  statement  of  this  princi- 
ple was  without  logical  or  rational  foundation.  Its  appli- 
cation was  found  to  be  inconsistent  with  and  repugnant  to 
the  interaction  of  two  or  more  particles;  the  conservation 
of  energy;  the  theoretic  location  of  gravity  at  the  center  of  a 
sphere  or  spherical  shell;  the  strength  of  gravity  beneath  the 
Earth's  surafce;  motion  in  an  elongated  ellipse;  the  run- 
away stars;  the  pressure  of  sunlight;  the  temperature  of  the 
Sun  and  of  Mars;  the  strain  of  a  revolving  body  upon  its  cen- 
ter of  motion;  the  problem  of  three  bodies,  or  even  of  two 
bodies;  nebular  rotation,  translation,  contraction,  subdivi- 
sion, and  development  into  the  forms  in  which  the  Solar 
System,  or  the  Sidereal  System,  now  exists;  the  Sun's  heat 
upon  different  portions  of  the  Earth's  surface,  and  upon  the 
whole  Earth  at  different  distances  from  the  Sun;  and  the 
phenomena  of  the  tides  in  the  Earth's  atmosphere  and  upon 
its  ocean  surface.  The  law  of  equal  areas  in  equal  times 
having  been  found  without  logical  proof  or  support,  even  di- 
rectly contradictory  of  the  third  law  of  Kepler,  the  theory  of 
gravitation,  largely  grounded  on  this  law,  was  found  to  be 
wholly  inadequate  in  every  conceivable  instance,  except  an 
apparent  conformity  with  some  facts  upon  and  near  the 
Earth's  surface. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  new  theory  of  material  interplanetary 
bonds  was  found  to  offer  a  rational  explanation  of  all  these 
phenomena,  and  moreover  was  seen  to  harmonize  with  the 
sunspot  periods  and  their  related  phenomena  for  nearly  a 
hundred  years;  with  the  solar  corona;  and  with  the  zodiacal 
light.  The  Saturnian  ring,  the  comets,  the  meteorites,  are 
unimpeachable  witnesses  in  its  favor.  The  hitherto  silent 


202]  RETROSPECT  383 

and  mysterious  movements  of  the  magnetic  needle,  mani- 
fested in  its  diurnal,  annual,  irregular,  and  secular  varia- 
tions, have  for  the  first  time  found  a  voice  apparently  as 
true  to  that  theory  as  that  needle  to  its  pole.  Even  the  tes- 
timony of  the  rocks,  the  Coal  Measures,  and  the  great  Ice 
Age,  which  time  has  engraved  upon  the  Earth-crust  and 
which  has  heretofore  remained  undecipherable,  is  clearly 
interpreted  by  means  of  the  guiding  principle  which  this  the 
ory  furnishes;  and,  in  turn,  further  elucidates  and  exempli- 
fies it.  Even  when  we  ascend  to  the  remotest  bodies  of  the 
Sidereal  System,  the  new,  the  variable,  and  the  periodical, 
stars  and  the  various  nebular  forms,  the  light  which  they 
shed  from  the  almost  infinite  depths  of  space,  but  illustrates 
the  harmony  of  the  theory  with  their  various  manifesta- 
tions. And  finally,  when  the  connective  theory  is  applied  as 
orie  great  consecutive  process  of  cosmical  evolution,  from 
planets  and  suns  down  to  the  domains  of  the  molecule  and  the 
electron,  the  motions  and  magnitudes  which  are  thus  arrived 
at  are  found,  so  far  as  can  be  seen,  to  be  fully  corroborated 
by  the  phenomena  of  heat,  light,  radiant  emissions,  and  ma- 
terial structure,  so  far  as  they  are  known. 

Thus,  while  the  present  Force-theory  seems  to  be  square- 
ly confuted  and  discredited  by  many  very  important  phenom- 
ena, and  apparently  not  contradicted  by  comparatively  few, 
every  phenomenon  of  Nature,  without  exception,  appears  to 
be  consonant  and  of  a  piece  with  the  new  connective  system 
here  advanced. 

But  a  word  of  caution  may  not  here  be  amiss.  Although 
apparently  so  excellent  and  so  agreeable  with  the  facts,  it 
can  hardly  be  expected  that  the  new  theory  could  be  per- 
fect. Even  though  it  be  regarded  so  meritorious  as  to  be 
generally  accepted  in  preferance  to  any  other,  there  are  many 
considerations  which  lead  to  the  belief  that  it  must  contain 
errors,  and  that  it  may  be  just  as  erroneous  in  comparison 
with  a  still  more  radical  and  exhaustive  theory  as  its  pred- 
ecessor is  in  comparison  with  it.  We  apparently  have  no 
right,  at  the  present  «rtage  of  our  development,  to  assume 
that  we  have  attained  to  perfection  in  anything;  and  espe- 


384  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [202 

cially  is  this  true  in  the  case  now  under  consideration,  of 
which  past  records  show  but  successive  acceptance  of  er- 
rors, each  of  which  is  only  less  gross  than  its  predecessor. 
But  though  we  cannot  yet  claim  perfect  conception  of  the 
mechanism  of  natural  phenomena,  our  duty  now,  as  in  the 
past,  is  none  the  less  to  cleave  to  those  conceptions  of  them 
which  appear  to  be  the  nearest  to  perfection,  and  willingly 
to  reject  all  others.  Whether  we  may  or  may  not  ultimately 
arrive  at  perfect  knowledge  of  these  things,  we  seem  at  the 
present  time  to  have  not  sufficient  grounds  for  deciding;  but 
if  ever  we  shall  attain  to  such  perfection,  however  great  the 
genius  or  the  prestige  or  the  material  interests  by  which  op- 
posing conceptions  may  have  been  or  is  maintained,  the  ready 
acceptance  of  the  less  erroneous  conceptions  is  the  only  road 
which  leadeth  in  that  direction. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 


CONCLUSION 


Twenty  years  ago,  the  system  of  theoretical  physics 
seemed  so  complete  as  to  justify  the  opinion,  not  infre- 
quently expressed,  that  it  was  probable  that  the  great  dis- 
coveries in  physics  had  all  been  made,  and  that  future  ad- 
vances were  to  be  looked  for  in  the  sixth  place  of  decimals. 
And  yet,  in  the  very  midst  of  these  predictions,  came  the  an- 
nouncement, made  just  18  years  ago  this  week,  of  Roentgen's 
discovery  which  showed  that  there  were  great  mines  of  phys- 
ical gold  as  yet  unworked.  Since  that  time  discoveries  of 
fundamental  importance  have  followed  one  another  with  such 
amazing  frequency  that  one  who  is  at  all  familiar  with  the 
history  of  physics  will  scarcely  challenge  the  statement  that 
the  past  15  years  is  quite  unparalleled  in  the  number  and  the 
significance  of  its  advances. — PROF.  R.  A.  MILLIKAN.* 

What  mathematicians  and  physicists  have  long  consid- 
ered as  well  established  is  now  being  uprooted  and  replaced 
by  non-Newtonian  mechanics  based  on  the  principle  of  rela- 
tivity. .  .  .  Scientific  thought,  Prof.  Ogg  described  as 
so  plastic  nowadays  that  the  most  cherished  tenets  of  the 
last  generation  of  men  of  science  are  being  abandoned. — f  , 

The  true  observer  is,  above  all  things,  an  amateur,  using 
the  word  in  that  splendid  sense  to  which  Prof.  Hale  recently 
introduced  us.  There  have  been  many  attempts  to  define  an 
amateur.  One  was  given  by  Prof.  Schuster  in  his  eloquent 
address  to  this  section  at  Edinburgh  in  1892: — "We  may 
perhaps  best  define  an  amateur  as  one  who  learns  his  science 
as  he  wants  it  and  when  he  wants  it.  I  should  call  Faraday 
an  amateur."  We  need  not  quarrel  with  this  definition,  and 
certainly  not  with  the  noble  instance  with  which  he  points 
it.  But  after  all  I  prefer  the  definition  of  Prof.  Hale  (Month- 
ly  Notices,  68,  64) : — "According  to  my  view,  the  amateur  is 
the  man  who  works  in  astronomy  because  he  cannot  help  it, 
because  he  would  rather  do  such  work  than  anything  else 
in  the  world,  and  who  therefore  cares  little  for  hampering 
traditions,  or  for  difficulties  of  any  kind." 

—PROF.  H.  H.  TURNER.  J 

*Address  Am.  Assoc.  Adv.  Sci.,  Dec.,  1912. 

tC.  F.  J.  on  Dr.  A.  Ogg^s  Address,  South  African  Assoc.  Adv.  Sci., 
Kimberly,  1914;  Nature,  93,  672. 

JAddress,  B.  A.   1911;  Nature,   87,   296. 


386  THE    CONNECTIVE    THEORY  [203 

I  speak  as  my  understanding  instructs  me,  and  mine  hon- 
esty puts  it  to  utterance.— SHAKESPEARE. 

How  long?  Ask  our  respected  friends  President  X  and 
Professor  Y  and  Dr.  Z  Editor  P  and  Director  Q,  who  sit  at 
the  gates  of  science  and  scrutinize  the  tickets,  and  exclude 
every  man  who  does  not  spell  according  to  their  Moham- 
medan way.  In  the  name  of  the  Prophet  phigs! 

— O.  E.  WHITE.* 

203.  A  Final  Inference. — There  is  one  further  argument 
in  favor  of  the  views  advanced  in  this  work.  The  first  edi- 
tion of  1000  copies  was  published  twenty-six  years  ago,  and 
contained  nearly  all  the  principal  arguments  of  the  present 
work.  Of  the  1000  copies,  150  were  sent  to  the  press  and 
various  scientific  authorities  for  reviews  and  nearly  all  of  the 
remainder  was  eventually  disposed  of  practically  as  waste 
paper.  Uniformly  favorable,  though  not  really  critical,  no- 
tices were  received  from  the  lay  press;  but  not  one  criticism 
worthy  of  the  name  came  from  scientific  sources  (See  Ap- 
pendix B).  This  is  not  a  complaint,  nor  merely  a  bit  of  naked 
history.  Judging  from  the  past,  if  the  views  here  set  forth 
are  true,  no  other  treatment  was  to  be  expected;  and  that 
such  treatment  has  been  received  'is,  therefore,  some  indica- 
tion that  the  views  advanced  are  true.  This  argument  may 
not  be  so  convincing  as  some  in  the  preceding  pages,  but  it 
is  not  entirely  without  weight.  The  writer  has  seen  more 
than  one  work,  apparently  of  much  less  merit  than  this  one, 
whose  arguments  were  torn  to  shreds  at  considerable  pains 
by  a  Reviewer  in  one  of  the  great  scientific  journals;  while, 
about  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  journal,  the  first  edi- 
tion of  this  work  received  an  absolutely  colorless  notice  of 
only  twelve  lines. 

But  that  was  twenty-six  years  ago,  and  today  better 
things  are  to  be  expected.  The  principles  discussed  are  cer- 
tainly of  prime  importance  in  physical  science.  If  the  con- 
clusions arrived  at  regarding  them  are  true,  it  will  not  be 
conducive  to  any  one's  reputation  or  honor,  nor  to  the  pub- 
lic welfare,  to  ignore  them,  however  great  may  be  the  pri- 
vate convenience  and  the  material  profit;  and  if  they  are 
not  true,  the  sincerity,  good  intention,  and  perseverance  of 

*  Science,  36,  74. 


203]  CONCLUSION  387 

the  author  over  so  long  a  period,  seems  to  deserve  at  least 
that  his  errors  should  be  pointed  out. 

There  is  undeniably  an  extreme  reluctance  to  surrender 
long-cherished  ideas,  however  apparently  wrong,  and  accept 
in  their  stead  original  and  novel  ideas,  however  apparently 
right.  This  reluctance  appears  to  be  much  more  prevalent 
than  is  realized  by  leaders  in  the  various  departments  of  in- 
tellectual and  social  activities,  and  from  which  even  science  is 
not  at  all  entirely  free.  It  is  due  largely,  no  doubt,  to  easy- 
going acceptance  of  current  views,  but  occasionally  assumes 
curious  forms.  Some  eighteen  years  ago  the  present  writer 
published  in  Notts  and  Qu«rtes  one  or  two  of  the  principal  ob- 
jections to  the  theory  of  gravitation  given  in* the  first  part 
of  the  present  work.  A  long  editorial  on  these  objections, 
entitled  "Removing  a  Landmark,"  appeared  in  a  leading  news- 
paper, admitting  the  probable  correctness  of  the  criticisms 
and  the  apparent  error  and  absurdity  of  the  theory  criti- 
cised. Yet  the  editorial  concludes  as  follows: 

"  "We  are  by  no  means  sure  that  the  intelligent  world  will 
care  to  part  with  its  faith  in  the  long-accepted  law  of  grav- 
itation even  in  the  face  of  these  apparently  unanswerable 
arguments.  The  trouble  is  that  when  one  lets  go  of  a  thing 
of  that  sort  a  precedent  is  established  which  may  lead  too 
far."* 

This  strange  utterance  may,  however,  be  much  in  the  same 
line  of  thought  as  Prof.  Schuster's  idea:  "We  all  want  to 
be  right  rather  than  to  be  wrong.  But  it  is  better  to  be 
wrong  than  to  be  neither  right  nor  wrong."  What  appears 
to  be  meant  is  that  it  is  far  more  conducive  to  our  attainment 
of  eventual  intellectual  perfection  to  entertain  even  a  wrong 
theory  than  to  have  no  theory  at  all,  because  the  former 
implies  intellectual  activity  and  eventual  progress,  while  the 
latter  implies  only  intellectual  stagnation.  Had  the  writer 
of  the  editorial  consulted  the  new  views  in  this  volume,  as 
he  had  a  portion  of  the  criticisms  of  the  old,  and  had  found 
the  new  views  as  true  as  the  old  were  found  to  be  erroneous, 
then  surely  he  would  not  have  expressed  hesitation  in  part- 
ing with  the  latter,  because  there  would  then  be  something 
*The  Detroit  Free  Press,  Oct.  1,  1896. 


388  THE   CONNECTIVE   THEORY  [203 

still  to  cling  to  when  the  old  were  given  up.  And  the  pres- 
ent writer  may  state  here  his  emphatic  judgment  that,  strong 
as  are  the  arguments  presented  iiere  against  the  old  theory, 
the  arguments  presented  in  favor  of  the  new  theory  are  at 
least  ten-fold  stronger. 

The  writer  is  not  one  of  those  who  has  wholly  lost  faith 
in  the  generosity  and  intellectual  hospitality  of  present-day 
men  of  science.  The  following  is  an  astounding  utterance 
by  one  who,  though  himself  a  leader  in  science,  had  to  fight 
for  many  years  for  the  original  truths  he  had  discovered: 

"You  may.be  right — I  will  not  undertake  to  say  about 
that — but  you  will  find  that  astronomers  are  a  very  prejudiced 
and  a  very  lazy  set  of  men,  and  are  shiftlessly  inclined  to 
accept  Newton's  law  because  it  saves  them  the  trouble  of 
doing  any  more  thinking.  Then,  too,  the  acceptance  of  your 
views  would  spoil  the  whole  existing  body  of  astronomical 
literature,  which  would  be  a  pity,  even  if  it  is  all  wrong. 
I  am  ashamed  to  make  these  admissions."* 

It  is  hard  to  believe  that  such  a  condition  of  things  can  be 
true.  As  to  the  present  writer's  own  experience,  it  may  be 
said  that,  while  he  has  many  times  sought  for  expression  of 
his  views  In  scientific  journals,  and  even  for  private  opinion 
regarding  them,  and  almost  as  often  been  refused,  he  does 
not  fail  to  see  that,  in  these  busy  days,  such  revolutionary 
views,  by  an  unknown  amateur,  could  hardly  be  expected  to 
receive  any  other  treatment.  But  he  hopes  and  believes  that 
the  same  treatment  will  not  apply  to  his  publications  ex- 
tended over  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century.  His  best  ef- 
forts have  been  given  to  the  subject  for  the  greater  portion 
of  his  life;  he  has  as  much  confidence  in  the  results  of  his 
investigations  here  presented  as  any  one,  practically  alone, 
possibly  can  have;  he  has  such  faith  in  the  honor  and  in- 
tegrity of  his  contemporaries  that  he  cannot  for  a  moment 
entertain  the  belief  that  a  studied  ignoring  today  of  important 
physical  truths,  from  whatever  source,  is  possible;  he  ap- 

*Prof.  Seth  C.  Chandler,  Editor  Astronomical  Journal,  in  a  letter  to 
the  author  dated  March  31,  1897,  declining  for  publication  a  paper  on  the 
theory  of  gravitation. 


203]  CONCLUSION  389 

peals  on  these  grounds  to  the  intellectual  world  for  a  fair 
and  imparital  consideration  of  his  work;  and  he  has  implicit 
trust  that,  in  this  day  and  age,  he  will  receive  what  he  de- 
serves: he  asks  no  more. 


APPENDIX  A. 


Further  investigation  is  just  what  is  wanted.  No  one 
can  expect  others  to  accept  his  word  for  an  entirely  new 
fact,  except  as  establishing  a  prima  facie  case  for  investi- 
gation. .  .  .  What  we  know  is  as  nothing  to  that  which 
remains  to  be  known.  This  is  sometimes  said  as  a  truism; 
sometimes  it  is  doubted.  To  me  it  seems  the  most  literal  truth, 
and  that  if  we  narrow  our  view  to  already  half-conquered 
territory  only,  we  shall  be  false  to  the  men  who  won  our 
freedom,  and  treasonable  to  the  highest  claims  of  science. 

—DR.  OLIVER  J.  LODGE. 

An  increasing  and  unfaltering  search  for  truth,  with  a 
belief  in  the  betterment  of  humanity  through  knowledge,  is 
the  ethical  basis  of  science,  and  none  other. 

—ROBERT  THORBURN  AYTON  INNES. 

On  all  hands  of  us  there  is  the  announcement,  audible 
enough  to  those  who  have  ears  to  hear,  that  the  old  empire 
of  routine  is  ended,  and  that  to  say  a  thing  has  long  been  is 
no  reason  for  its  continuing  to  be. — CARLYLE. 

204.  During  the  year  1915,  as  stated  in  the  Preface,  this 
work  has  been  submitted  for  critical  examination  to  the  phys- 
ical  department  heads  of  two  of  the  principal  colleges  and 
two  state  universities  in  the  western  United  States.  The 
result  from  one  of  the  latter  was  entirely  nil,  the  work  hav- 
ing been  returned  after  six  weeks'  time  without  a  single 
comment  of  any  kind.  Two  of  the  other  three  responded 
with  criticisms  consisting  of  about  three  and  eight  typewrit- 
ten pages  of  the  first  chapter  only;  while  the  remaining  one 
made  an  extensive  review  of  portions  of  the  whole  work,  con- 
sisting of  some  ninety  typewritten  pages,  with  much  subse- 
quent discussion  besides. 

It  is  freely  conceded  here  that  each  of  the  three  gentlemen 
responsible  for  these  examinations  was  actuated  therein  by 
nothing  else  than  the  deep  interest  which  they  have  in  sci- 
ence; and  that  their  perfect  sincerity  and  kindly  intentions, 
as  well  as  their  absolute  confidence  in  all  their  findings,  is 
clearly  apparent  and  indubitable. 


392  APPENDIX  A  [204 

The  results  of  the  first  and  second  examinations,  with  the 
replies  thereto,  were  all  submitted  in  the  examinations  fol- 
lowing. 

As  the  last  of  the  examiners  thought  the  publication  of 
his  comments  undesirable  because  it  might  be  understood 
in  a  controversial  sense,  the  writer  thought  it  best  to  accord 
the  same  treatment  to  all  three  and  therefore  refer  to  them 
anonymously  as  Dr.  A,  Dr.  B,  and  Dr.  C.  The  criticisms  of 
the  first  two  are  given  in  full,  while,  for  the  reason  stated, 
only  as  many  brief  quotations  are  made  from  Dr.  C's  com- 
ments as  were  necessary  to  make  the  answers  thereto  in- 
telligible. 

Although  one  was  promised,  no  reply  to  the  answers 
made  to  the  first  two  criticisms  of  the  work  has  been  offered, 
with  the  exception  that  Dr.  A,  after  reading  Dr.  B's  criti- 
cism and  the  answer  thereto,  again  kindly  advised  that  the 
work  should  not  be  published  "because  of  erroneous  conclu- 
sions." He  further  stated — "I  believe  that  any  physicist  to 
whom  you  may  wish  to  refer  our  criticisms  will  declare  them 
valid."  The  strength  of  this  position  is  undeniable.  It  does 
not  necessarily  follow,  however,  that  the  strength  of  Dr.  A's 
position  with  respect  to  the  great  majority  of  physicists 
proves  the  strength  of  his  argument.  On  the  contrary,  the 
writer  has  much  more  confidence  now  than  ever  before  that 
his  own  views  are  correct  because  he  feels  morally  certain 
that  not  one  valid  argument  has  been  made  against  them. 

The  issue  is  a  large  but  not  very  difficult  one,  and  the 
decision  is  left  entirely  to  the  impartial  reader  of  today  and 
of  all  future  ages. 


CRITICISM  BY  DR.  A. 


205.—  January  30,  1915. 

Dear  Sir: — I  at  last  took  time  to  read  with  considerable 
care  portions  of  your  book,  especially  those  relating  to  the 
subject  of  physics.  In  view  of  the  great  amount  of  time 
and  thought  that  you  have  devoted  to  the  subject  it  is  with 
sincere  regret  that  I  must  say  that  I  do  not  find  your  con- 
tentions well  upheld  in  many  instances.  I  infer  that  you 
desire  my  candid  opinion  of  the  work  rather  than  a  few  vague 
statements  of  approval  or  disapproval.  I  trust  that  you  will 
appreciate  the  improbability  that  the  thousands  of  scientists 
of  the  past  and  present  have  uniformly  overlooked  the  er- 
rors which  you  think  to  point  out.  I  judge  from  reading  the 
manuscript  that  you  have  not  had  the  advantage  of  advanced 
training  in  mathematics  and  physics  which  seems  to  me  in- 
dispensable in  handling  the  collosal  subject  you  have  in  hand. 

I  find  the  manuscript  well  worded  and  clearly  presented, 
so  that  it  could  be  easily  read  by  any  one  interested.  For 
this  reason  I  believe  it  would  be  a  serious  mistake,  and  an 
injustice  to  yourself  as  well  as  to  the  public,  to  have  the  man- 
uscript published  without  its  first  securing  the  approval  of 
a  competent  physicist,  a  competent  astronomer,  and  a  com- 
petent geologist,  as  these  three  phases  of  scientific  endeavor 
a*re  most  involved. 

Large  portions  of  the  manuscript  seem  to  me  very  inter- 
esting reading  and  might  in  my  judgment,  perhaps,  be  util- 
ized in  the  makeup  of  a  book;  but  the  conclusions  in  many 
instances  which  I  have  looked  into  do  not  seem  to  be  well 
grounded.  I  may  say  that  I  have  not  seen  any  theory  of 
gravitation  which  seems  to  me  at  all  plausible;  but  I  should 
prefer  this  state  of  mind  to  the  acceptance  of  various  fantas- 
tic theories  which  I  have  heard  promulgated.  The  tre- 
mendous amount  of  force  necessary  to  hold  the  earth  and  sun 
together  because  of  the  centrifugal  force  is  so  great  as  to  stag- 


394  APPENDIX  A  [206 

ger  the  imagination.  I  fail  to  see,  however,  that  we  make  the 
matter  easier  to  understand  by  supposing  that  there  exists  be- 
tween them  a  bond  manufactured  out  of  the  atmosphere  which 
seems  to  have  no  tenacity.  In  'this  connection  I  may  add 
that  your  question  as  to  whether  centrifugal  force  should  be 
expressed  by  MVVR  or  WV2/R,  should  not  arise.  You  real- 
ize, I  trust,  that  under  all  circumstances  the  centrifugal  force 
is  equal  to  the  centripetal  force.  The  latter  varies,  as  I  be- 
lieve you  concede,  in  accordance  with  the  inverse  square 
law  which  you  quoted  in  various  places.  For  this  reason, 
considering  the  fact  that  a  body  weighs  27  times  as  much  at 
the  sun  as  here  you  can  easily  compute  the  weight  of  the 
earth  with  regard  to  the  sun.  This  force  you  will  see  must 
necessarily  be  equal  to  the  centrifugal  force  acting  upon  the 
earth,  and  you  can  very  soon  determine  whether  MV2/R  or 
WV2/R  must  be  used  to  check  this  force. 

While  many  of  the  matters  which  you  are  considering 
cannot  be  treated  by  experiment,  some  of  them  can,  and  it 
would  seem  to  me  highly  advisable  to  have  this  tested.  One 
case  which  I  shall  especially  point  out  occurs  in  Section  18. 
I  shall  now  take  up  in  detail  some  of  the  points  which  seem 
to  me  to  be  erroneous  in  the  various  sections.  I  have  en- 
deavored in  most  cases  to  point  out  the  error  in  such  a  way 
that  I  believe  you  will  upon  careful  reading  be  willing  to 
concede  it. 

206.  (18)  You  should  change  E2/80  to  E2/80D2,  in  which 
D  is  the  distance  between  the  earth  and  the.  moon.  Doubling 
the  earth's  mass  would  produce  exactly  the  same  effect  upon 
the  mutual  attraction  as  would  doubling  the  mass  of  the 
moon.  This  is  not  an  absurdity,  and  could  be  proved,  I  am 
sure,  by  the  use  of  magnets  of  different  strengths.  Suppose, 
e.  g.,  that  we  have  two  strong  magnet  poles  A  and  B  and 
two  weak  magnet  poles  a  and  b.  I  am  sure  that  it  would  be 
found  that  the  attraction  between  A  and  a  and  b  placed  side 
by  side  at  a  distance  D  from  A,  would  have  exerted  upon  them 
the  same  force  as  it  would  from  a  if  placed  at  the  same  dis- 
tance D  from  A  and  B  placed  side  by  side.  This  equality  of 
the  force  in  these  two  cases  would  be  in  complete  accord 


209]  CRITICISM  BY  DR.  A  395 

with  the  inverse  square  law  as  applied  to  magnets,  and  its 
verification  by  experiment  would  support  the  application  of 
the  inverse  square  law  as  applied  to  gravitation. 

207.  (19)     Gravitational  attraction  is  not  energy,  hence 
there  is  no  conflict  with  the  law  of  the  conservation  of  en- 
ergy in  assuming  that  there  is  an  attraction  between  each 
mass  particle  and  each  other  mass  particle  of  the  universe. 
To  be  sure  two  bodies  have  potential  gravitational  energy 
when  separated  by  a  distance,  and  if  they  fall  toward  each 
other  they  develop  kinetic  energy. 

208.  (20)     Your    demonstration    that    a    hollow    gravita- 
tional  sphere   does   not   act  upon   a   body   outside   of   it  as 
though  its  mass  were  concentrated  at  the  center  is  not  at 
all  conclusive.     Indeed,  by  showing  that  the  first  pair  (that 
is  the  area  on  the  near  side  and  the  similar  equal  area  on 
the   far  side   from   the   outside   point  in   question)    gives   a 
higher  value,  and  the  second  pair  of  areas  a  lower  value  than 
if  situated  at  the  center,  you  have  proved  the  probability  or 
at  least  the  possibility  that  the  average  effect  would  be  the 
same  as  if  the  mass  were  all  concentrated  at  the  center  of 
the  hollow  sphere,  since  you  show  conclusively  that  one  pair 
would  give  too  high  a  value  and  the  other  too  low.     A  rig- 
orous demonstration  of  the  fact  that  such  a  shell  would  be- 
have as  though  all  of  its  material  were  at  the  center  would 
require  a  very  thorough  knowledge  of  the  integral  calculus 
as  the  integration  here  involved  would  be  quite  difficult.     I 
believe,  however,  that  a  fairly  good  proof  for  the  similar  case 
of  electrical  attraction  of  a  hollow  sphere  is  given  in  Had- 
ley's  "Electricity  and  Magnetism,"  which  volume  is  in  the 
library. 

209.  (21)     A  very  elementary  proof  may  be  given  that 
the  attraction  inside  of  a  hollow  gravitational  shell  is  zero. 
See  Hadley's  "Electricity  and  Magnetism"  for  this  proof  as 
applied  to  an  electrically  charged  hollow  sphere.     Please  note 
that  the  inverse  square  law  applies  to  electro-static  as  well 
as  to  gravitational  attraction.     I  may  state  that  the  observed 
increase  in  gravitational  attraction  in  deep  mines  shown  by 
the  decrease  in  the  period  of  a  pendulum  is  what  might  rea- 


396  APPENDIX  A  [211 

sonably  be  expected.  For,  with  the  "shell"  removed,  the 
earth  would  then  be  smaller  to  be  sure,  but  the  deep  portions 
of  the  earth  might  consist  of  material  of  enough  greater  den- 
sity than  the  surface  portions  to  more  than  offset  this.  If  it 
were  possible  to  descend  into  the  earth  a  great  many  miles 
a  decrease  in  weight  would  undoubtedly  be  shown,  the  weight 
becoming  zero  upon  reaching  the  center  of  the  earth.  At 
this  point  the  gravitational  pull  would  be  exerted  equally  in 
all  directions  and,  of  course,  give  a  result  at  zero. 

210.  (22)     Near  the  close  of  this  section  a  very  serious 
error  occurs  in  supposing  that  the  slight  horizontal  motion 
of  the  body  in  question  would  make  an  appreciable  difference 
in  its  path  through  the  earth.     In  this  connection  it  should 
be  emphasized  that  the  earth  attracts  bodies  which  are  sit- 
uated outside  of  it  as  though  its  mass  were  concentrated  at 
the  center.    If  the  earth  were  homogeneous,  or  rather  of  the 
same  density  throughout,  the  weight  of  the  body  would  con- 
stantly decrease  until  it  became  zero  upon  reaching  the  cen- 
ter of  the  earth.     If  now  the  gravitational  attraction  of  the 
earth  behaves  for  bodies  within  its  volume  as  though  its 
mass   were   all   concentrated   at  its   center,   then   the   body, 
if  given  a  slight  horizontal  motion,  would  pass   down  and 
around  the  center  of  the  earth  in  a  greatly  elongated  ellipse 
with  the  center  of  the  earth  as  one  of  its  foci.    If  a  hole  were 
bored  along  the  axis  of  the  earth  a  body  dropped  in  would 
pass  back  and  forth  between  the  north  and  the  south  poles.  If 
the  hole  were  bored  at  the  equator  then  the  falling  body 
would  strike  against  the  east  side  of  the  hole  because  of  the 
slower  rotation  toward  the  center  of  the  earth. 

211.  (26)     Unquestionably  the  mass,  not  the  weight,  is 
involved    in    centrifugal    force.     Prof.    Young's    calculations 
seem  to  be  correct.     For,  making  use  of  the  data  you  give, 
and  computing  them  in  a  somewhat  different  way  than  he 
does,  I  obtain  the  same  result  for  the  total  pull  that  is  given 
by  him.       To  begin  with,  let  us  note  that  the  centrifugal 
force  MV2/R  is  equal  to  the  centripetal  force  (the  pull  of  the 
sun  upon  the  earth).    If  M  is  the  mass  of  the  earth  in  pounds, 
V  its  velocity  in  feet  per  second  and  R  the  distance  between 


211]  CRITICISM  BY  DR.  A  397 

the  earth  and  the  sun  in  feet,  then  the  centrifugal  force  will 
be  in  poundals  not  pounds.  Disregarding  for  the  present 
the  units  involved  but  using  the  same  for  the  earth  in  its 
orbit  and  the  earth  at  the  sun's  surface,  we  make  the  fol- 
lowing computations.  Call  the  centrifugal  force  X  (earth  in 
its  orbit).  Call  the  centripetal  force  Y  (earth  in  its  orbit). 
Then  X  —  Y.  (Note  that  X  and  Y  are  not  in  tons,  pounds, 
or  poundals,  but  merely  in  an  arbitrary  unit  of  force  the  val- 
ue of  which  could  be  found,  but  its  value  does  not  interest 
us  in  the  present  consideration) .  If  the  earth  were  revolving 
about  the  sun  just  above  its  surface  we  wo,uld  have  according 
to  your  data,  for  the  centrifugal  force 

MV2/R  =  (270/19)2  X  92,000,000/440,000  X  X  =  42,500X. 
In  this  position  the  pull  on  the  earth   (that  is,  the  centri- 
petal force)  in  accordance  with  the  inverse  square  law  would 
be 

(92,000,000/440,000)2   X   Y  =  44,500Y. 

That  is,  both  the  centrifugal  and  the  centripetal  forces  have 
been  increased  by  the  same  amount,  namely  about  44,000- 
fold.  The  difference  between  42,500  and  44,500  is  due  either 
to  errors  in  my  calculation  or  in  the  assumed  data,  or  per- 
haps in  both.* 

Perhaps  it  would  be  of  interest  to  you  should  I  give  some 
numerical  calculations.  Assuming  the  mass  of  the  earth  to 
be  6  X  1021  tons,  its  weight  at  the  sun  would  be  27.5  X  6  X 
1021,  and,  in  accordance  with  the  inverse  square  law,  the  pull 
of  the  sun  upon  the  earth  when  in  its  orbit  would  be 
27.5  X  6  X  1021  X  (440,000/92,000,000)2  =  37  X  10"  tons.  (1) 
Note  that  (19/270)2  =  440,000/92,000,000,  so  that  Prof.  Young 
virtually  multiplies  165  X  1021  by  (440,000/92,000,000)2,  as  I 
have  done. 

Note  as  above  stated  that  the  centrifugal  force  MV2/R  is 
in  poundals  (32.2  poundals  equals  one  pound).  If  V  is  in 
feet  per  second,  R  in  feet,  and  M  the  mass  in  poundals,  then 
the  centrifugal  force  (Fc)  exerted  outward  by  the  earth  when 

*The  error  is  chiefly  in  19,- the  Earth's  orbital  velocity  in  miles  per 
second,  which  is  too  large,  18-525  being  the  velocity  corresponding  with 
the  given  distance. — The  Author. 


398  APPENDIX  A  [212 

in  its  orbit  is  given  by 

Fc  =  (6X1021X2000X192X52802/92,000,000  X5280X32.2)lbs.  = 

38.2X10"  tons.*  (2)! 

Note  that  equations  (1)  and  (2)  give  concordant  results 
considering  that  the  computations  are  made  roughly  on  the 
slide  rule  with  rough  data.  Thus,  for  example,  19  miles  per 
second,  92,000,000  miles,  etc.,  are  but  rough  approximates. 

212.  While  I  am  not  attempting  to  go  into  the  criticisms 
of  the  astronomical  side  of  your  work  with  which  I  am  not 
familiar,  I  will  state  that  I  believe  that  your  criticisms  of 
Kepler's  second  law  seems  to  arise  from  a  misapplication  of 
that  law.  The  areas  swept  out  by  the  radius  in  unit  time  is 
a  constant  for  a  given  planet,  but  a  different  constant  for 
each  planet,  being  greater  for  the  more  distant  planets. 

I  sincerely  hope  you  will  take  these  criticisms  in  the  spirit 
in  which  they  are  given,  and  trust  that  you  may  take  the 
advantage  of  the  criticisms  of  competent  astronomers  also. 

With  best  regards  and  with  fullest  appreciation  of  the 
great  amount  of  labor  the  work  has  been  to  you,  I  am, 

Sincerely  yours, 


*The  why,  or  wherefore,  of  this  curious  poundal  equation  is  certainly 
not  apparent.  The  ordinary  method  of  determining  centrifugal  force  is 
by  means  of  the  ratio  of  two  distances  and  the  ratio  of  the  squares  of 
two  velocities ;  while  the  poundal  method  eliminates  one  of  the  two  dis- 
tances and  the  square  of  one  of  the  two  velocities.  The  latter  method 
does  not  appear  to  get  true  results  for  the  Earth  at  the  Sun's  surface,  or 
for  the  Moon,  or  for  any  of  the  planets  other  than  the  Earth,  in  their 
proper  orbits ;  and  that  it  gives  an  approximately  true  result  in  the  case 
of  the  Earth  appears  to  be  merely  an  accident. — The  Author. 


REPLY  TO  DR.  A'S  CRITICISM 


February  5,  1915. 

Dear  Sir: — I  am  under  great  obligation  to  you  for  your 
examination  of  a  part  of  my  work,  and  for  the  seven  or  eight 
pages  of  Criticisms  of  it  which  you  enclosed  with  the  re- 
turned MS. 

Your  reading  of  the  latter  was  no  doubt  very  cursory,  and 
your  criticisms  hurriedly  conceived  and  very  briefly  consid- 
ered; and  I  sincerely  hope  you  will  pardon  me  if  I  do  not 
agree  with  them  and  point  out  to  you  the  reasons  why. 

213.  You  say  that,  in  Art.  18,  I  should  change  E2/80  to 
E2/80D2;  but  this  would  not  alter  the  conclusion  arrived  at  in 
the    slightest   degree.     The   total   mutual    attraction    of   the 
Earth  and  the  Moon  is  E2/80,  or  E2/80D2,  or  E2/80D4,  which 
may  be  even  more  accurate  still.     Doubling  the  Moon's  mass, 
we   have   E2/40,   or   E2/40D2,    or   E2/40D4,    and    doubling   the 
Earth's  mass,  we  have  precisely  the  same  values  as  when 
the  Moon's  mass  is  doubled.    This  is  the  absurdity,  that  doub- 
ling the  Moon's  mass  produces  precisely  the  same  effect,  ac- 
cording to  the  theory  of  gravitation,  as  doubling  the  Earth's 
mass.     This  absurdity  you  do  not  explain,  nor  does  it  appear 
to  admit  of  explanation,  either  by  magnetism  or  any  other 
phenomenon. 

214.  Your  reference  to   Art.    19,  that  "Gravitational  at- 
traction is  not  energy,  hence  there  is  no  conflict  with  the  law 
of  the  conservation  of  energy,"  is  certainly  extraordinary  and 
seems  wholly  inadmissible.     If  the  action  of  the  Sun  in  hold- 
ing the  planets  in  their  orbits  and  in  causing  bodies  to  fall 
towards  its  surface  is  not  a  manifestation  of  energy,  then  it 
is  clear  that  energy  must  be  defined  anew  and  quite  differ- 
ently from  the  conception  of  Faraday,  Tait,  and  Kelvin. 

215.  With  regard  to  the  attraction  of  a  spherical  shell 
upon  an  external  particle,  P,  (Art.  20)  you  suggest  that  the 


400  APPENDIX  A  [215 

greater  attraction  of  the  diametriaclly  opposite  equal  ele- 
ments in  the  line  CP  m<ay  average  up  with  the  lesser  at- 
traction of  the  diametrically  opposite  equal  elements  in  a 
line  at  right  angles  to  CP,  so  that  the  average  elementary 
attraction  would  equal  the  attraction  of  an  element  at  the 
center.  But  by  actual  computation  they  are  found  not  to  do 
so. 


In  the  diagram  let  AMBN  represent  the  shell,  CA  its 
radius,  and  CP  the  distance  of  the  particle  at  P.  Three  cases 
have  been  considered,  first,  where  CA  =  10cm.  and  CP  = 
llcm.;  second,  where  CA  =  10cm.  and  CP  =  20cm.;  and 
third,  where  CA  —  5cm.  and  CP  =  50cm.  In  the  first  case 
the  measurements  of  the  variable  distances,  Ps  and  Ps',  for 
twenty  pairs  of  opposite  particles,  the  successive  positions 
of  the  pairs  varying  from  P  by  uniform  cosine  differences  of 
the  shell,  gave  for  the  real  attractions  of  all  the  pairs  an 
excess  of  three-fourths  of  the  total  attraction  of  the  shell,  as 
compared  with  its  total  attraction  if  concentrated  into  one 
point  at  its  center.  In  other  words,  according  to  the  law 
of  gravitation,  the  attraction  of  the  shell  upon  P  is  greater 
by  three-fourths  of  itself  than  it  would  be  if  the  shell  were 
concentrated  at  its  center.  In  the  second  case  the  same  num- 
ber of  measurements  in  the  same  way  gave  an  excess  of  at- 
traction of  the  real  shell  upon  P  of  2/23  of*  its  whole  amount, 
as  compared  with  what  that  attraction  would  be  if  concen- 
trated at  the  center.  And  in  the  third  case  ten  simliar  meas- 
urements gave  an  excess  upon  P  of  1/359  of  its  total  attrac- 


216]  REPLY  TO  DR.  A's  CRITICISM  401 

tion,  as  compared  with  the  attraction  it  would  have  upon  P  if 
placed  at  one  point  at  its  center. 

With  greater  and  greater  comparative  values  of  CP,  the 
decrease  of  the  shell's  attraction  at  the  center,  as  compared 
with  its  real  attraction,  becomes  smaller  and  smaller,  but 
never  entirely  disappears. 

Thus,  with  the  ratio  of  the  real  attraction  of  the  shell  to 
its  theoretic  attraction  at  the  shell's  center  continually  chang- 
ing with  the  distance  of  the  external  particle  on  which  it 
acts,  it  seems  perfectly  obvious  that  Newton's  theorem  of  the 
continual  equality,  under  all  circumstances,  of  these  real  and 
theoretic  attractions,  can  not  be  true. 

216.  Regarding  Art.  21,  you  maintain  that  the  attraction 
of  a  hollow,  spherical  shell  upon  any  point  within  it  is  zero. 
According  to  the  reply  to  your  criticism  of  the  preceding  ar- 
ticle, it  is  inferable,  however,  that  the  attraction  of  a  hol- 
low, spherical  shell  is  not  zero  at  every  point  within  it. 
Your  reference  to  electric  and  magnetic  phenomena  in  proof 
of  the  correctness  of  your  views,  however  much  supported 
by  current  scientific  authorities,  cannot  be  accepted  as  valid, 
for  the  simple  reason  that  electricity  has  to  do  with  surfaces, 
while  the  attraction  of  gravity  has  to  do  with  solids,  or 
masses;  and,  when  the  surfaces  or  areas  are  multiplied  by 
thickness,  in  order  to  obtain  volume  and  mass,  the  law  of 
inverse  distance  squares  no  longer  applies. 

It  is  easy  enough  for  high  scientific  authorities  to  give 
out  a  statement  regarding  a  physical  fact  without  the  arduous 
investigation  from  all  points  of  view  which  is  necessary  for 
scientific  accuracy;  and  it  is  equally  easy  for  the  scientific 
learner  to  swallow  such  statements  solely  on  the  authority 
of  their  authors.  But  however  generally  this  may  be  done 
does  not  prove  the  statements  to  be  facts.  It  is  easy  enough 
to  employ  the  artifice  d,  or  density,  instead  of  thickness,  as, 
it  appears,  scientists  frequently  do,  and  then  cancel  this 
common  factor  out  of  the  calculation;  but  this  will  not  do, 
for  the  reason  that  thickness  is  a  necessary  factor  of  the  prop- 
osition to  be  proved  and,  when  thickness  is  introduced,  it 
causes  different  variations  of  the  distances  of  the  masses,  or 


402 


APPENDIX  A 


[216 


centers  of  gravity,  of  the  two  elements,  except  when  they 
have  the  same  value.  Sometimes  the  mere  idea,  or  ghost,  of 
thickness  is  introdced,  though  not  the  reality;  in  which  cases 
the  thickness  is  supposed  to  be  tnfimtesimally  small;  which, 
of  course,  practically  reduces  the  shell  to  a  mere  area,  as 
before. 

The  usual  method  of  proving  that  the  attraction  of  a  shell 
is  zero  at  any  point  within  it  is  to  regard  that  point  as  the 


V 


common  vertex,  v,  of  two  opposite  cones,  or  pyramids,  the 
bases  of  which  lie  in  opposite  portions  of  the  surface  of  the 
shell.  Let  the  lengths  of  these  inverted  cones  be  1  and  10 
from  the  common  vertex,  with  a  common  angle.  Then,  if 
the  areas  of  the  respective  bases  did  the  attracting,  the  two 
attractions  at  the  vertex,  l/l2  and  100 /102,  would  be  equal, 
of  course.  But  if  the  shell  be  of  unit  thickness  and  of  uni- 


216]  REPLY  TO  DR.  A's  CRITICISM  403 

form  density,  then  the  masses  of  the  respective  base  segments 
of  the  two  cones  will  be  to  each  other  as  1  and  271,  and  by 
simple  arithmetic,  the  respective  distances  of  the  mass-cen- 
ters of  these  segments  from  the  vertex  will  be  about  0.7937 
and  9.5262.  But  l/(6.7987)2  and  271/(9.5262)2  are  no  longer 
equal;  in  fact  the  one  is  nearly  twice  the  value  of  the  other. 

Now  these  segments  are  certainly  centrobaric  (see  Thom- 
son and  Tait,  Nut.  Phil.,  Sec.  544);  i.  e.,  each  has  a  point,  or 
center  of  gravity,  within  it  through  which  a  plane  passing  in 
any  direction  cuts  the  mass  into  two  equal  parts.  And  we 
have  it  on  the  authority  of  the  same  authors  (Sec.  544) 
that  such  a  body  "attracts  all  matter  external  to  itself  as  if 
its  own  mass  were  collected  at  its  center  of  gravity".  In 
apparent  contradiction  to  this  it  is  also  held  that  the  center 
of  gravity  is  not  always  the  gravitating  center;  which  also 
it  may  be  well  to  look  into. 

Let  the  same  two  cones  be  solid  and  of  uniform  density, 
and  let  x  and  y  denote  the  distances  from  the  vertex  of  the 
gravitating  centers  of  the  two  base  segments,  each  being  of 
unit  thickness.  Then,  by  the  law  of  gravitation,  1/x2  = 
271/y2,  whence  y  =  xV271.  Now  let  x  =  .6,  then  y  =  9.877+, 
which  is  evidently  too  large;  while,  instead  of  taking  the 
tenth  segment  of  the  larger  cone,  if,  from  the  same  assumed 
value  of  x,  we  find  the  y  of  the  second  segment  we  have 
1/x2  =  7/y2,  whence  y  =  1.587+,  which  is  evidently  too 
small.  And,  no  matter  what  value  we  may  assign  to  x,  either 
above  .6  or  below  it,  it  is  impossible  for  it,  by  the  law  of  in- 
verse squares,  to  accord  with  the  true  distances  of  any  two 
segments  of  the  larger  opposite  cone.  The  value  of  x  that 
most  nearly  satisfies  the  distance  of  the  mass-center  of  the 
outer  segment  of  the  large  cone  is  .5820691,  which  makes  that 
distance  9.5820666,  which  cannot  be  far  from  correct.  But 
this  same  value  of  x  gives  for  the  distance  of  the  mass-cen- 
ter of  the  second  segment  from  the  vertex  only  about  1.54, 
which  is  clearly  too  small.  Therefore,  it  seems  evident  that, 
even  according  to  the  law  of  gravitation  itself,  the  proposi- 
tion that  a  spherical  shell  does  not  attract  a  particle  within 
it  in  any  direction  (Thomson  and  Tait,  Nat.  Phil.,  Sec.  479; 


404  APPENDIX  A  [218 

Newton,  Prop.  LXX,  Bk.  I,  Principia)    is  absolutely  without 
foundation  in  fact. 

The  formula  given  in  Thomson  and  Tait's  Nat.  Phil.,  Sec. 
488,  expressive  of  the  total  attraction  of  a  spherical  shell 
upon  a  particle,  P,  viz.,  47ra2d/(CP)2,  in  which  d  represents 
the  density  of  the  shell  and  a  represents  CA,  its  radius,  is 
another  illustration  of  some  of  the  "laws"  of  present-day 
science.  According  to  this  formula,  as  CP  diminishes,  the 
attraction  of  the  shell  upon  P  continually  increases  until  it 
arrives  at  the  center  where  it  becomes  infinitely  great.  Or, 
if  the  attraction  inside  of  the  shell  be  nil,  then  the  maximum 
attraction  of  the  shell  changes  instantly  to  zero,  as  P  passes 
through  the  surface.* 

217.  Perhaps  the  meaning  of  your  criticism  of  Art.   22, 
where  you  say  "a  very  serious  error  occurs  in  supposing  that 
the   slight   horizontal   projection   of   the   falling   body   would 
make  an  appreciable  difference  in  its  path  through  the  earth," 
is  not  fully  comprehended.     The  writer  does  not  make  that 
proposition,   only   Prof.    Young — and   even   yourself,   in   your 
very  criticism  of  it  as  the  writer's.     If  the  Earth  were  con- 
centrated into  a  point  at  its   center,  a  bod\,  starting  from 
a  point  4000  miles  from  that  center,  would  fall  towards  it 
and,  if  not  hindered,  would  gain  a  momentum  which  would 
carry  it  to  a  point  4000  miles  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  cen- 
ter.    This   is   admitted   by  yourself,   and,   indeed,   generally. 
But  Prof.  Young — and  yourself  too — hold  that  a  slight  hori- 
zontal motion  applied  to  the  falling  body  at  the  starting-point 
would  cause  it  to  return  back  immediately  after  passing  the 
center.     The  present  writer  neither  makes  nor  believes  such 
a  statement;  and  he  cannot  conceive  how  anybody  else  can 
accept  such  apparent  absurdity. 

218.  Regarding    Art.    26,  you    say    "unquestionably    the 
mass,  not  the  weight,  is  involved  in  the  centrifugal  force;" 
and  yet  you  take  the  Earth's   weight  at  the   Sun    (27.5X6 
X1021  tons)  and  multiply  it  by  (440,000 /92X106)2  to  find  the 
centrifugal  force  in  its  terrestrial  orbit  (37Xl01T  tons),  just 
as  Young  does.     Why  do  you  take  the  Earth's  weight  at  the 

*For  a  further  proof  of  the  results  arrived  at  above,  see  Art.  246  (d). 


218]  REPLY  TO  DR.  A's  CRITICISM  405 

Sun  to  measure  its  centrifugal  force  92,000,000  miles  awa3 
from  the  Sun,  where  you  admit  its  weight  to  be  only  6X1021 
tons?  This  question  was  asked  with  regard  to  the  same  op- 
eration by  Prof.  Young,  but  it  appears  to  have  escaped  your 
notice.  If  it  is  right  to  increase  the  Earth's  weight  as  it  is 
moved  in  towards  the  Sun,  why  should  it  not  be  right  to 
decrease  it  as  it  is  again  moved  back  to  its  orbit,  to  obtain  the 
measure  of  its  centrifugal  tendency  there? 

(To  make  this  point  as  plain  as  possible  to  the  reader,  a 
few  words  may  here  be  added  to  the  original  reply.  The 
Earth's  mass  is  admitted  to  be  6X1021  tons.  It  is  also  admit- 
ted that  the  Earth's  centrifugal  force  required  to  balance  the 
Sun's  attraction  is  about  44,000  times  greater  at  the  Sun's 
surface  than  in  its  present  orbit  (see  Art.  211).  At  the  Sun's 
surface  the  Earth's  mass  is  still  6X1021  tons;  and  dividing 
this  by  44,000  gives  136  XlO15  tons  for  the  centrifugal  force 
at  the  Earth's  orbit,  if  that  force  were  based  on  the  Earth's 
mass-value.  But  Prof.  Young  and  Doctor  A  do  not  use  the 
mass-value  of  the  Earth  upon  the  Sun  at  all,  but  its  weight- 
value,  and  so  multiply  the  mass-value  by  27.5,  thus  arriving 
at  the  centrifugal  force  of  about  37X10"  tons,  as  shown  by 
Prof.  Young  and  Dr.  A.  Now  in  the  body  of  the  work  the 
present  writer  contends  that  the  centrifugal  strain  should  be 
based  on  the  weight-value,  rather  than  on  the  mass-value,  and 
quotes  Young  in  support  of  this  view  in  the  case  of  the  Earth 
and  the  Sun.  This  appears  to  be  denied  by  Dr.  A,  who,  how- 
ever, himself  does  the  very  thing  which  he  denies  that  Young 
does  (see  his  equations,  Art.  211).  This  is  the  whole  of  this 
matter  in  a  nut-shell  and  ought  to  be  perfectly  clear  to  any 
one.) 

Where  it  was  asked — "If  a  cannon-ball  were  removed  to  a 
place  where  it  weighed  no  more  than  a  feather  does  at  the 
Earth's  surface,  would  not  a  man's  strength  be  less  taxed 
to  raise  the  ball  there  than  where  it  weighed  a  hundred 
pounds  ?" — you  make  the  marginal  comment  on  the  MS., 
"Surely."  But  where  it  was  asked  if  a  spring  balance,  placed 
as  a  link  in  a  string  by  which  such  a  ball  was  lifted  or  swung 
around,  would  not  register  a  smaller  strain  where  the  ball 


406  APPENDIX  A  [220 

weighed     the     least,     you     make     the     marginal     comment, 
"NEVER." 

Now  let  these  two  comments  of  yours  be  placed  side  by 
side.  Let  the  man  take  the  spring  balance  in  his  hand  and, 
by  means  of  it,  lift  the  ball  where  it  weighed  the  least.  Ac- 
cording to  your  view,  the  strain  upon  the  man's  arm  would  be 
no  greater  than  if  he  were  lifting  a  feather  at  the  Earth's  sur- 
face, while  the  spring  balance  would  indicate  the  strain  to  be 
still  one  hundred  pounds.  Isn't  that  strange?  Why  should 
the  molecular  springs  of  the  man's  arm  and  of  the  spring 
balance  give  such  different  results? 

219.  You  say  "The  areas  swept  out  by  the  radius  in  unit 
time  is  a  constant  for  a  given  planet,  but  a  DIFFERENT 
constant  for  each  planet,  being  greater  for  the  most  distant 
planets."     It  is  to  be  presumed  that  you  do  not  deny  that, 
owing  to  various  causes,  the  radius  vector  of  a  planet's  orbit 
may  itself  vary  considerably.     Now  if,  for  instance,  the  radius 
vector  of  Mercury's  orbit  should  stretch  out  to  the  orbit  of 
Venus,  you  hold  that  the  two  planets  would  describe  different 
areas  in  unit  time.     But  how  is  it  possible  for  the  two  plan- 
ets to  behave  so  differently  when  their  motions  are  governed 
entirely  by  precisely  the  same  central  attraction?    If,  on  the 
contrary,  you  hold  that  the  variation  of  a  planet's  radius  vec- 
tor has  a  limit  beyond  which  equable  description  of  areas  is 
impossible  by  it,  what  is  that  limit,  and  why  and  by  whom 
has  it  been  assigned?    And,  besides,  is  it  not  a  matter  of  fact 
that  the  radius  vector  of  a  comet's  orbit  varies  through  all 
the  planetary  distances  and  still  maintains  equable  descrip- 
tion of  areas,  though  subject  to  the  same  power  of  attraction 
which  determines  the  entirely  different  description  of  areas 
by  the  several  planets? 

220.  All  your  criticisms  appear  to  be  now  answered  fully 
and  fairly.     If  you  still  think  they  are  not,  the  writer  will  be 
much  pleased  for  a  statement  to  that  effect,  however  brief. 
It  is  regrettable  that  you  were  unable  to  review  the  far  more 
important  criticisms  regarding  the  distribution  in  time  and 
space,  of  solar  heat;  the  problem  of  three  bodies;  the  ocean 
and  aerial  tides;    the  various   discrepancies   of  the  nebular 


221]  CRITICISM  BY  DR.  B  407 

hypothesis;  and  especially  that  you  took  no  notice  whatever 
of  the  new  positive  views  advanced  regarding  these  and  many 
other  phenomena. 

You  kindly  advise  that  the  work  should  be  submitted  be- 
fore publication  to  a  competent  astronomer  and  a  geologist; 
which,  indeed,  would  undoubtedly  be  an  excellent  thing,  if 
only  the  views  would  be  taken  seriously  enough  to  receive 
a  fair  consideration.  But  perhaps  you  do  not  realize  the 
weight  of  the  prestige  of  the  centuries  of  acceptance  of  the 
present  views.  Various  high  authorities  have  already  been 
appealed  to,  among  them  the  Carnegie  and  Smithsonian  insti- 
tutions, and  wholly  without  success,  although,  in  one  of  these 
instances,  the  payment  of  the  cost  of  examination  was  of- 
fered by  the  writer.  This  is  why  special  gratitude  and  appre- 
ciation is  due  to  yourself  and  the  good,  old  institution  you 
represent  for  having  treated  the  writer  more  kindly  in  this, 
respect  than  all  others  excepting  a  few  lay  friends. 

The  writer  earnestly  hopes  that,  some  day  and  somehow,, 
he  may  be  able  to  repay  your  trouble  and  kindness  in  this 
matter. 


CRITICISM  BY  DR.  B. 


221.—  May  15,  1915. 

Dear  Sir: — At  the  request  of  President  Foster  I  have  read 
the  manuscript  of  your  proposed  book  and  am  sending  you 
this  expression  of  my  opinion  of  its  scientific  merit.  In  so 
boldly  and  severely  criticising  the  accepted  scientific  theories 
and  methods  you  must,  of  course,  realize  that  you  lay  your- 
self open  to  severe  criticism  to  the  extent  to  which  you  have 
misunderstood  or  misapplied  these  theories  and  methods.  I 
shall,  therefore,  write  frankly  my  criticism  of  your  work.  At 
the  same  time  I  realize  the  tremendous  amount  of  work 
which  you  have  done,  and  make  my  criticisms  only  in  a  spirit 
of  good  will. 

You  have  invited  criticism  of  your  work  and  wish  to  know 


408  APPENDIX  A  [221 

why  publishers,  scientific  societies  and  authorities  have  re- 
fused to  pay  attention  to  it.  Possibly  the  following  discus- 
sion will  suggest  to  you  the  reason. 

Your  work  is  divided  into  two  main  divisions:  (1)  a  crit- 
icism of  the  accepted  theories  of  astronomical  and  physical 
science,  in  which  you  attempt  to  cast  doubt  on  some,  ridicule 
on  others  and  to  point  out  the  general  inaccuracy  and  inad- 
equacy of  all;  (2)  the  exposition  of  your  own  theory  of  cos- 
imcal  evolution  which  you  think  succeeds  where  you  claim 
the  other  theories  fail. 

In  reading  over  your  first  part  I  have  not  found  one  single 
argument  that  is  valid.  In  some  cases  you  have  misunder- 
stood the  facts,  in  others  you  have  drawn  conclusions  that 
are  not  warranted  by  the  facts  and  in  many  cases  you  have 
quibbled  over  or  misunderstood  definitions  of  terms  which 
are  the  most  elementary  foundation  of  physical  science  and 
which  are  verified  experimentally  thousands  of  times  every 
year  in  laboratories. 

Let  me  illustrate  by  a  consideration  of  your  first  chap- 
ter. You  criticise  Newton's  law  of  gravitation  in  eleven  par- 
ticulars. In  three  cases  (20,  20,  25)  you  have  drawn  conclu- 
sions which  do  not  follow  from  your  argument  or  from  the 
facts  of  the  case.  In  four  cases  (17,  18,  19,  26)  you  confound 
ideas  of  mass,  weight,  force  and  energy.  Physics  is  an  ex- 
act science  which  cannot  be  successfully  handled  without  ad- 
herence to  the  definitions  of  the  concepts  in  terms  of  which 
the  laws  of  physics  are  stated.  In  one  case  (16)  you  fail  be- 
cause of  ignorance  of  a  commonly  accepted  mode  of  expres- 
sion, which  you  interpret  in  a  manner  neither  warranted  by 
the  statement  nor  in  accord  with  well  understood  custom  and 
usuage.  In  two  cases  (22,  24)  you  fail  to  consider  all  im- 
portant factors  of  the  problem.  These  cases  are  typical  of 
your  entire  book  and  I  have  discussed  them  in  more  detail 
in  the  accompanying  pages. 

You  are  concerned  over  the  fact  that  these  teachings  of 
Newton  and  others  are  commonly  accepted  on  authority  with- 
out test,  neglecting  the  fact  that  they  have  been  and  are 
being  subjected  to  the  most  rigid  experimental  tests  which 


222]  CRITICISM  BY  DR.  B  409 

human  ingenuity  can  devise.  They  have  stood  the  test  thou- 
sands of  times  and  neither  you  nor  anyone  else  has  yet  put 
forward  one  reliable,  authenticated  and  convincing  proof  of 
their  incorrectness. 

With  regard  to  the  second  part  of  the  book  I  shall  not  go 
into  detail.  Your  speculations  regarding  connective  fluid, 
molecular  bonds,  etc.,  have  nothing  to  back  them  up  which 
leads  me  to  consider  them  seriously. 

Because  of  the  inaccuracies  throughout  your  book  in  state- 
ments of  fact,  argument  and  conclusions  I  cannot  honestly 
say  anything  except  that  I  consider  it  worthless  from  a  scien- 
tific point  of  view.  For  there  remains  in  it,  as  far  as  I  have 
found,  not  one  convincing  argument  in  support  of  the  theories 
you  advocate.  If  I  had  time  I  should  go  more  into  detail,  but 
I  trust  the  criticism  of  Chapter  I  will  illustrate  my  point. 

I  hope  you  will  take  this  letter  in  the  spirit  in  which  it 
is  meant,  for  I  have  simply  given  my  frank  opinion,  which  you 
invited.  For  your  methodical  study  and  interest  in  the  sub- 
ject I  have  the  highest  respect.  It  seems  to  me  that,  with 
the  great  fund  of  facts  which  you  have  gathered  together,  you 
should  be  in  a  good  position  to  write  popular  articles  on  As- 
tronomy. But  I  feel  certain  that  you  will  have  no  success 
in  your  attempts  to  overthrow  modern  science  with  arguments 
such  as  those  embodied  in  the  proposed  book. 


CRITICISM    OF   CHAPTER    I,   PART    I. 


222.  (16)  You  make  the  point  of  this  section  a  criticism 
of  what  you  conceive  to  be  a  contradiction  between  two  com- 
mon methods  of  stating  Newton's  law  of  gravitation.  In  do- 
ing this  you  assume  that  the  phrase  "varies  as  the  masses" 
means  "varies  as  the  sum  of  the  masses."  This  is  entirely 
your  own  interpretation  and  no  more  logical  than  to  consider 
that  it  means  "varies  as  the  product  of  the  masses."  As  a 
matter  of  fact  all  people  educated  in  mathematical  terms  rec- 
ognize the  phrase  as  being  a  statement  of  a  variation  as  the 


410  APPENDIX  A  [224 

product  of  the  masses.  You  are  either  ignorant  of  or  else 
ignore  the  common  accepted  usage  in  the  interpretation  of 
this  phrase.  The  inconsistency  which  you  make  a  point  of 
does  not  exist. 

223.  (17,  18)     The  fact  which  you  consider  so  strange  is 
nothing  more  startling  than  that  two  pounds  weigh  twice  as 
much  as  one  pound.     There  is  nothing  inconsistent  or  at  all 
peculiar  about  the  hypothetical  cases  you  consider. 

(19).  Your  error  in  the  two  preceding  sections  and  in  this 
one  comes  from  not  understanding  the  distinction  between 
force  and  energy.  The  application  of  force  does  not  neces- 
sarily involve  doing  any  work  or  using  any  energy.  For  in- 
stance a  book  lying  on  the  table  exerts  a  continual  force  but 
does  no  work  because  there  is  no  motion  in  the  direction  of 
the  force.  The  principle  of  the  conservation  of  energy  ap- 
plies only  to  work  and  energy,  and  not  to  forces,  gravitational 
or  any  other  kind.  You  object  to  Professor 's  crit- 
icism on  this  point.  I  do  not  care  to  argue  but  simply  call 
attention  to  the  fact  that  you  have  no  right  to  criticise  the 
"principle  of  the  conservation  of  energy"  unless  you  abide  by 
the  concept  of  energy  which  is  defined  and  employed  in  the 
statements  of  this  principle.  Nobody  believes  in  a  "principle 
of  conservation  of  force,"  which  is  really  the  principle  which 
you  attack. 

224.  (20)      In  dividing  up  your  sphere  into  opposite  pairs 
of  elements  you  considered  the  attraction  at  P  due  only  to  the 


N 

pair  at  A  and  B  and  find  that  the  attraction  at  P  is  greater 
than  if  A  and  B  were  located  at  C.  This  is  correct.  But  you 
are  not  justified  in  concluding  that  the  same  thing  is  true  of 


227]  CRITICISM  BY  DR.  B  411 

all  pairs.  For  instance  the  attraction  at  P  due  to  M  and  N 
is  less  than  if  they  were  at  C.  It  thus  appears  that  on  the 
average  the  total  attraction  at  P  is  about  the  same  as  if  the 
sphere  were  concentrated  at  C.  To  prove  this  exactly  cal- 
culus must  be  used.  You  evidently  do  not  understand  the 
proof  or  you  would  not  have  included  the  paragraph  dealing 
with  the  effect  of  considering  a, point  inside  the  sphere. 

225.  (21)     The  average  density  of  the  earth  is  more  than 
twice  that  of  the  earth's  crust,  whence  the  inside  is  consid- 
erably more  than  twice  as  dense  as  the  6rust.     Thus  it  is 
easily  possible  that  the  increased  nearness  to  dense  masses 
more   than    counterbalances    the   decreased   total    attracting 
mass  as  we  go  toward  the  earth's  center.     On  a  more  striking 
scale  you  will  recognize  a  case  of  the  same  phenomenon  when 
the  value  of  gravity  at  the  earth's  surface  is  compared  with 
that    of    a    balloon    high    above    the    earth's    surface.      The 
value  of  "g"  is  greater  at  the  earth's  surface  although  the  at- 
tracting mass  is  greater  at  the  balloon,  since  it  includes  the 
earth  and  a  portion  of  the  atmosphere  as  well.    In  this  case 
also  the  result  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  increased  amount  of 
attracting  matter  does  not  compensate  for  the  increased  dis- 
tance when  the  density  of  the  matter  is  comparatively  small. 
Your  calculation,  where  you  make  allowance  for  difference 
in  densities,  is  all  right  as  far  as  it  goes.     You  can  not  place 
much  reliance,  however,  on  data  from  the  bottom  of  a  single 
mine,  since  a  few  tons  of  dense  rock  near  the  bottom  would 
make  a  great  difference. 

226.  (22)     You  neglect  the  all  important  fact  that  with- 
out a  slight  sidewise  motion  the  falling  body  would,  while 
passing  through  the  center  of  force,  for  an  infinitesimal  time 
experience  an  infinite  force.     The  effect  of  the  sidewise  dis- 
placement is  to  prevent  the  body  from  passing  through  this 
central  region  where  the  force  is  practically  infinite.     It  is 
this  difference  which  causes  the  elliptic  orbit  in  the  second 
case  instead  of  the  oscillatory  vibration  like  a  pendulum  as 
in  the  first  case. 

227.  (24)     The  calculations  by  Lord  Kelvin  and  others  on 


412  APPENDIX  A  [229 

the  age  of  the  earth  are  now  regarded  only  as  curiosities, 
since  it  has  been  found  that  the  quantity  of  radioactive  mate- 
rial present  in  the  earth  is  sufficient  to  have  kept  its  temper- 
ature approximately  constant  for  millions  of  years.  There 
are  now  no  accepted  limits  of  the  earth's  age.  Probably  the 
best  estimates  are  based  on  the  rate  of  certain  radioactive 
changes  and  calculated  from  the  amount  of  salt  in  the  ocean. 
These  calculations  give  the  geologists  plenty  of  time  to  work 
in  their  theories. 

228.  (25)     According  to  my  calculation  the  sunlight  pres- 
sure on  the  earth  is  about  100,000  tons  instead  of  5,000  tons, 
which  you  mention.     I  take  my  data  from  the  papers  by  Nich- 
ols and  Hull,  which  you  quote.     This  difference  would  make 
your  argument  stronger  rather  than  weaker,  however.     But 
you  have  entirely  neglected  to  consider  the  question  of  wheth- 
er this  force,  great  as  it  is,  would  be  appreciable  when  acting 
on  so  great  a  mass  as  the  earth.     If  you  compare  this  force 
with  the  force  of  gravitation  you  will  find  that  it  is  only 
0.000  000  000  000  5  as  large  as  the  force  of  gravitation.     It 
is  therefore  entirely  too  small  to  measure  in  gravitation  ex- 
periments.    In  the  last  ten  thousand  years  it  would  have  al- 
tered the  distance  of  the  earth  from  the  sun  by  a  factor  of 
about  one  part  in  fifteen  hundred,  and  its  effect  is  balanced 
entirely  or  in  part  by  the  collisions  of  the  earth  with  me- 
teorites. 

229.  (26)     You  are  confounding  mass  and  weight.       In 

view  of  your  argument  and  your  answer  to  Prof. 'a 

criticism  of  it  I  do  not  feel  that  it  is  worth  while  to  argue 
the  matter.  You  also  confound  force  and  work  as  in  the  three 
preceding    sections.     For    instance    you    express    a    tension 
(force)  in  terms  of  foot  pounds  (work).     The  point  of  crit- 
icism of  your  argument  is  that  you  calculate  your  centrifugal 
force  in  terms  of  work  done  against  gravity.     The  two  are 
entirely  distinct.     The  tension  on  the  string  at  the  earth's 
surface  due  to  gravity  is  of  course  twice  as  great  as  that  due 
to  gravity  at  1600  miles  above  the  earth.     But  the  part  of  the 
tension  due  to  centrifugal  force  is  the  same  at  these  two  or 
any  other  places'. 


REPLY  TO  DR.  B'S  CRITICISM 


Cherish  as  a  vital  principle  an  unbounded  spirit  of  inquiry 
and  ardency  of  expectation,  unfetter  the  mind  from  prejudices 
of  every  kind,  leave  it  open  and  free  to  every  impression  of 
a  higher  nature  which  it  is  susceptible  of  receiving — guarding 
only  against  self-deception  by  a  habit  of  strict  investigation. 

—SIR  JOHN  HERSCHEL. 

230.—  May  21,  1915. 

Dear  Sir: — Your  letter,  together  with  three  small  pages  of 
criticism  of  the  work  submitted  to  you  some  ten  weeks  since 
through  Dr.  Foster,  has  been  received  a  few  days  ago. 

It  may  be  stated  in  the  first  place  that  the  writer  feels 
sincerely  grateful  to  you  for  criticising  the  work  at  all.  Af- 
ter some  thirty  years  of  diligent  effort  towards  having  the 
work  examined  by  those  who  make  the  study  and  teaching  of 
this  subject  their  profession,  you  are  the  second  one  who, 
through  the  kindness  of  Dr.  Foster,  has  responded;  and,  dis- 
cussion being  the  breath  of  life  to  a  new  work  of  this  kind, 
you  can  easily  conceive  how  thankful  its  author  is  to  you  for 
even  the  little  you  have  had  opportunity  to  afford. 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  hoped  you  will  not  be  offended 
when  it  is  stated  that  much  disappointment  is  felt,  not  only 
at  the  amount  of  your  discussion,  but  even  at  its  inadequacy. 
No  disrespect  whatsoever  is  meant  in  saying  this ;  but  in  such 
a  matter  as  this  one  should  be  emphatically  in  earnest. 
Whatever  the  writer  may  be,  you  can  be  regarded  only  as  a 
man  of  science,  who  ought,  and  professes,  to  desire  the  truth, 
the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth.  You  have  cer- 
tainly been  very  severe,  not  in  your  criticism  of  the  work, 
where  severity  was  really  called  for,  but  in  the  mere  asser- 
tions and  aspersions  of  your  letter.  But  this  is  taken  in  the 
best  possible  spirit  because  you  were  undoubtedly  perfectly 
sincere  and  thought  it  the  very  best  thing  for  the  writer  to 
know  exactly  what  you  thought. 

Now  the  writer  presumes  to  express  his  thoughts  with 


414  APPENDIX  A  [230 

equal  frankness,  exposing  what  he  conceives  to  be  your  faults 
and  correcting  your  errors,  without  the  least  intention  to  of- 
fend, but  merely  to  place  the  case  fairly  and  squarely  before 
the  court  of  public  opinion;  and  it  is  expected  that  you  will 
accept  these  criticisms  in  the  same  spirit  as  that  in  which 
your  own  are  accepted. 

In  reading  over  the  first  part  of  the  work,  you  say  you 
"have  found  not  one  single  argument  that  is  valid;"  that  the 
author  has  "misunderstood  facts,"  "drawn  conclusions  not 
warranted  by  the  facts,"  "quibbled  over  or  misunderstood  def- 
initions;" and  because  of  these  faults  and  other  "inaccura- 
cies" throughout  the  book  "in  statements  of  fact,  argument 
and  conclusions,"  you  "cannot  honestly  say  anything  except 
that"  you  "consider  it  worthless  from  a  scientific  point  of 
view." 

In  all  this  the  possibility  that  you  may  be  quite  right  is 
admitted,  but  not  so  its  moral  certainty.  After  all  it  seems 
rather  unlikely  that  a  person  of  a  fairly  sound  mind,  as  de- 
termined from  comparison  with  his  neighbors,  who  was  born 
with  a  strong  natural  bent  for  investigations  in  the  domains 
of  physical  science  and  who,  through  extreme  difficulties  and 
with  infinite  pains,  has  gratified  that  bent  almost  continually 
for  the  past  forty  years  and  always  in  touch  with  the  best 
scientific  data — has  not  produced  "one  single  argument  that 
is  valid,"  and  that  all  the  results  from  his  most  diligent  in- 
quiries during  that  time  are  absolutely  "worthless  from  a  sci- 
entific point  of  view."  Standing  alone  before  the  bar  of  pub- 
lic opinion,  the  writer  honestly  and  sincerely  desires  to  ex- 
press his  belief  that,  in  making  this  statement,  you  have  en- 
tirely and  inexcusably  overstepped  the  bounds  of  propriety 
and  reasonable  probability. 

From  his  experience  and  observation  for  about  half  a 
century  and  over  a  considerable  portion  of  this  planet,  the 
writer  has  come  to  the  conclusion  that  there  are  a  consider- 
able number  of  men,  who  make  science  their  profession,  who 
entertain  such  extremely  positive  views  regarding  the  doc- 
trines they  themselves  accept  and  teach  that,  if  an  angel  from 
Heaven  should  tell  them  these  doctrines  were  defective,  they 


231]  REPLY  TO  DR.  B's  CRITICISM  415 

would  not,  could  not,  believe  it.  And  the  questioning  of  such 
doctrines  by  a  mere  amateur  calls  only  for  their  emphatic  si- 
lence at  best.  Any  evidence  against  their  views  they  look 
at  through  the  wide  end  of  their  mental  telescopes,  while  the 
evidence  in  favor  of  their  views  is  magnified  so  highly  as  to 
leave  no  room  for  doubt  or  question.  You  will,  perhaps,  ad- 
mit that  there  are  such  people  and  others  also  who  range 
through  various  degrees  of  conservatism  and  liberality  up  to 
the  true  progressive  in  science.  And  what  an  -excellent  thing 
it  would  be  if  we  all  occasionally  made  a  thorough  introspec- 
tion as  to  our  status  in  this  respect. 

Of  the  26  chapters  of  the  work,  you  have  partially  and, 
judging  from  the  results,  very  cursorily  criticised  only  one, 
and  that  one  far  from  being  the  most  important.  Dr.  Foster 
spoke  so  kindly  and  enthusiastically  that  really  much  more 
had  been  expected;  and  the  disappointment  was  certainly  not 
diminished  when  it  was  found  that  the  chapter  you  had  dis- 
cussed was  the  very  same  which  Dr.  A.  had  already  dis- 
cussed; whose  results  together  with  the  reply  thereto,  were 
placed  before  you  with  the  work  itself. 

There  is,  however,  a  sort  of  negative  compensation  both 
in  the  limited  scope  of  your  criticism  and  in  its  quality.  The 
confinement  of  your  special  objections  to  a  single  chapter, 
the  ground  of  which  had  already  been  broken  by  another, 
may  possibly  imply  that  this  was  the  most  vulnerable  point 
of  attack;  and  the  weakness  of  that  attack,  however  cursor- 
ily attempted  by  a  teacher  of  your  standing,  is  some  indica- 
tion of  the  strength  of  the  defense.  This  weakness  may  now 
be  demonstrated  more  in  detail. 

231.  (16)  Regarding  this  article  you  object  that  the 
writer  "assumes  that  the  phrase  'varies  as  the  masses'  means 
'varies  as  the  sum  of  the  masses/  "  which  you  say  is  entirely 
my  own  interpretation  and  is  "no  more  logical  than  to  consid- 
er that  it  means  'varies  as  the  product  of  the  masses;'  "  which 
last  you  further  state  all  people  educated  in  mathematical 
terms  accept  as  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  phrase. 
Now  why  do  you  find  fault  with  the  sum-interpretation  of 
the  phrase  when  you  admit  it  is  only  "no  more  logical"  than 


416  APPENDIX  A  [233 

the  product-interpretation,  which  you  say  everybody  accepts? 
It  must  be  reaffirmed,  however,  that  the  sum-interpreta- 
tion of  the  phrase  "varies  as  the  masses"  is  the  only  logical 
interpretation  of  it.  If  the  masses  are  5  and  6^  then  "varies 
as  the  masses"  means  varies  as  5  and  6.  According  to  the 
"well  understood  custom  and  usage"  of  the  physical  depart- 
ment of College,  5  and  6  may  be  30;  but  the  pres- 
ent writer  still  prefers  to  "quibble"  and  manifest  his  "ignor- 
ance" by  maintaining  that  5  and  6  are  11. 

232.  (17,   18)     Your  mention   of  these  articles   contains 
no  criticisms,  nothing  but  mere  assertions,  and  calls  for  no 
reply  for  that  reason.    The  objection  to  the  theory  of  gravi- 
tation that  the  gravitative  effect  of  doubling  a  single  atom  at 
one  end  of  a  rod  is  precisely  the  same  as  that  of  doubling  the 
mass  of  the  Earth  at  the  other  end,  you  pass  wholly  unno- 
ticed; except  that  you  say  under  Art.  19  that  the  error  in  con- 
sidering this  an  objection  is  that  no  distinction  is  made  be- 
tween force  and  energy.     However,  if  gravitative  power  ex- 
erted at  one  end  of  the  rod  be  force  (or  energy),  it  sems  very 
hard  to  see  why  a  similar  gravitative  power  exerted  at  the 
other  end  of  the  rod  is  not  also  force  (or  energy)  of  precisely 
the  same  nature,  without  distinction. 

233.  (19)     You  say   "the  application   of  force   does   not 
necessarily  involve  doing  any  work  or  using  any  energy.     For 
instance,  a  book  lying  on  the  table  exerts  a  continual  force 
but  does  no  work  because  there  is  no  motion  in  the  direction 
of  the  force."     How  do  you  know  that  the  weight  of  the  book 
upon  the  table  does  no  work  upon  the  invisible  molecular 
motions  of  the  table  and  of  the  book?  and,  if  one  book  does 
no  work  because  it  produces  no  visible  motion,  why  do  several 
books  produce  visible  motion  by  causing  the  table  to  collapse? 
Was  it  the  last  book  that  did  it,  or  did  each  book  do  its  part? 
What  is  force  if  it  is  not  something  that  acts?  and  what 
matters  it  whether  its  action  produces  a  visible  or  an  invis- 
ible effect?    What  right  have  we  to  draw  the  limit  of  motion 
at  the  boundaries  of  our  own  particular  sensations? 

The  force  of  gravitation,   conceived   as   drawing  all  the 
bodies  of  the  universe  towards  one  another,  is  undeniably  a 


235]  REPLY  TO  DR.  B's  CRITICISM  417 

manifestation  of  something  that  does  work,  and  is  so  regarded 
by  eminent  scientists,  who  are  quoted  to  that  effect;  and 
therefore  it  ought  to  be  subject  to  the  law  of  the  conserva- 
tion of  energy  just  the  same  as  anything  else  that  does  work, 
such  as  heat  or  electricity. 

234.  (20)     Like  Dr.  A,  you  maintain  that  the  attraction 
upon  P  of  the  pairs  of  elements,  AB  and  MN,  average  the 
same  as  if  all  were  placed  at  C,  (See  fig.  Art.  224)  because 
that  of  one  pair  is  greater  than  this  average  while  that  of 
the  other  is  less.     But  how  do  you  know  that  they  do?     To 
prove  it  exactly,  you  say  the  calculus  must  be  used;  but  you 
do  not  refer  to  a  single  authority  who  has  used  the  calculus 
for  this  purpose.* 

In  reply  to  Dr.  A,  it  was  stated  that  computation  from 
diagrams  drawn  to  actual  scale  proved  that  the  average  at- 
traction of  the  particles  of  a  spherical  shell  was  not  the  same 
as  if  the  whole  were  placed  at  the  center.  This  statement 
can  be  proved  by  simple  arithmetic  and  would  require  but  a 
small  portion  of  your  time  to  look  it  up;  yet  you  have  wholly 
ignored  it,  although  it  leaves  not  a  shred  of  justification  for 
the  central  allocation  of  the  attraction  of  a  sphere  according 
to  Newton's  Proposition  LXXI,  which  you  accept  as  an  in- 
disputable fact. 

Newton,  the  propounder  of  this  theorem,  was  admittedly  a 
great  scientist,  but  he  was  only  human,  and  it  is  human  to 
err.  Indeed  it  is  not  half  so  disgraceful  for  Newton  to  err 
as  it  is  for  some  of  his  disciples  to  ignore  the  evidence  which 
seems  to  make  the  error  obvious  at  a  glance  and  logically 
undeniable. 

235.  (22)     Your   explanation   of  the   passage   of  a  bodj 
from  one  side  of  the  Earth  through  the  center  to  the  opposite 
side,  and  so  back 'and  forth  continually,  seems  at  least  orig- 
inal and  rather  ingenious.     You  say  it  is  because  the  falling 
body  experiences  for  an  infinitesimal  time  an  infinite  force 
while  passing  through  the  center,  which  enables  it  to  pass  to 
the'  opposite  side;    and  that  the   slight  sidewise  movement 

*Both  Dr.  A  and  Dr.  C  have  referred  to  such  a  proof  as  applied  to 
electric  potential.  Exit  for  reasons  stated  in  Art.  216,  such  proof  cannot 
be  considered  as  applicable  in  the  case  of  gravitation. 


418  APPENDIX  A  [237 

permits  it  to  avoid  this  infinite  force,  and  so  enables  it  to 
turn  around  the  center  into  an  elliptic  orbit.  But  where  do 
you  find  authority  for  the  infinte,  or  indeed  any,  force  at  the 
Earth's  center?  The  present  teaching  is  that  the  force  of 
gravity  decreases  inwards  to  the  Earth's  center,  where  it  is 
zero.  A  center  of  force  is  usually  involved  in  elliptic  motion, 
though,  even  in  that  case,  in  view  of  the  magnitude  of  the 
Earth  as  compared  with  that  of  the  universe,  infinitesimal 
rather  than  infinite,  might  better  describe  it.  But  in  the  the- 
oretic vibration  of  a  body  from  one  surface  of  the  Earth  to  the 
opposite  surface,  no  such  center  of  force  is  a  factor.  The 
cause  usually  assigned  for  such  vibration  is  the  falling  mo- 
mentum which  the  body  acquires  in  obedience  to  the  decreas- 
ing series  of  momentary  gravitative  impulses  impressed  upon 
it  between  the  surface  and  the  center;  where  that  momentum 
becomes  sufficiently  great,  in  the  supposed  absence  of  fric- 
tion, to  carry  the  body  against  the  Earth's  attraction  just  to. 
the  opposite  surface. 

Yet  this  infinite  center  of  force,  which  is  really  out  of  the 
question,  is,  no  doubt,  one  of  the  "all  important  factors  of  the 
problem"  which,  in  this  article,  you  charge  the  writer  with 
failing  to  consider.  It  seems  difficult  to  believe  that  such 
an  argument  could  be  intended  seriously;  yet  reference  to 
your  comments  upon  this  article  appears  to  leave  no  doubt 
upon  this  point. 

236.  (24)     You  maintain  that  Kelvin's  calculations  about 
the  past  heat  of  the  Sun  are  today  regarded  merely  as  curios- 
ities, and  that  radio-active  agencies  now  take  the  place  of 
Kelvin's   gravitational   pressure  and  amply  account  for  the 
facts  of  geology.     You  may  be  right  in  this,  but  there  are 
quite  a  number  of  people  who  do  not  accept  that  view.     It 
has  not  been  proved  that  radio-active  energy  has  been  greater 
in  past  time  than  at  the  present  time;   and  don't  you  really 
think  that  most  people  would  regard  it  a  very  cold  day  on 
this  planet,  if  the  Sun's  heat  were  cut  off  and  we  had  to  rely 
on  radio-active  energy  alone? 

237.  (25)     As  to  the  pressure  of  sunshine,  it  does  not 
appear  that  Profs.  Nichols  and  Hull's  estimate  of  five  thou- 


238]  •    REPLY  TO  DR.  B's  CRITICISM  419 

sand  tons  upon  the  Earth,  which  alone  you  notice,  is  of  one 
whit  more  importance  than  Prof.  Crookes'  estimate  of  three 
thousand  millions  of  tons,  which  is  equally  quoted.  Your  own 
estimate  of  100,000  tons  you  say  would  have  an  effect  almost 
wholly  unappreciable,  which,  in  ten  thousand  years  would  dis- 
turb the  Earth  only  1/1500  of  its  solar  distance;  which  effect 
you  say  is  counteracted  "entirely  or  in  part  by  the  collisions 
of  the  earth  with  meteorites."  The  meteorites,  however,  ap- 
pear to  strike  the  Earth  about  equally  from  all  directions; 
and,  moreover,  if  the  Earth  be  balanced  in  its  orbit  between 
the  centrifugal  and  the  centripetal  tendencies,  a  continual 
pressure  of  100,000  tons  acting  upon  it  as  on  a  body  starting 
from  a  state  of  rest,  moving  it  three  times  as  far  in  the  sec- 
ond second  as  in  the  first,  five  times  as  far  in  the  third  sec- 
ond, and  so  on  for  ten  thousand  years,  it  certainly  does  seem 
to  one  who  draws  "conclusions  which  do  not  follow  . 
from  the  facts"  that  your  estimate  would  not  be  a  drop  in  the 
bucket  of  the  real  perturbation  from  such  a  cause. 

The  usual  slipshod  method  of  calculating  the  perturbing 
forces  without  the  slighest  consideration  of  their  cumulative 
effect  in  time  and  space  may  be  according  to  the  textbooks, 
but  it  is  hardly  good  science. 

238.  (26)  You  say  that  in  this  article  mass  and  weight 
are  confounded  when  only  deliberate  use  is  made  of  the  latter 
instead  of  the  former  in  measuring  the  inertia  and  momentum 
of  bodies  and  the  stresses  caused  by  their  motions.  You 
also  say  that  force  and  work  are  similarly  confounded  when 
only  the  latter  is  assigned  as  an  effect  of  force-action.  You 
criticise  the  conception  of  the  centrifugal  tendency  of  a  cir- 
culating body  working  against  and  balancing  the  opposite 
tendency  of  gravity.  If  any  of  these  views  is  illogical,  you 
should  state  why  and  give  others  more  logical,  or  not  make 
just  the  bare  assertions. 

Your  two  statements  regarding  the  revolving  sling  that 
"the  tension  of  the  string  at  the  earth's  surface  due  to  grav- 
ity is  of  course  twice  as  great  as  that  due  to  grav- 
ity at  1600  miles  above  the  earth.  But  the  part  of  the  ten- 
sion due  to  centrifugal  force  is  the  same  at  these  two  or  any 


420  APPENDIX  A  [239 

other  places,"  appear  to  admit  of  only  one  meaning,  namely, 
that  the  tension  on  the  string  is  determined  by  the  two  fac- 
tors, weight  of  the  revolving  body  and  its  centrifugal  force. 
When  you  admit  then  that  this  tension  is  diminished  when 
the  weight  of  the  revolving  body  is  diminished,  you  admit  the 
very  contention  that  is  made  against  Dr.  Lodge  and  Prof. 
Young.  That  contention  is  that  the  centrifugal  tendency  of 
circular  motion  is  determined  solely  by  the  distance  from  the 
center  of  motion  and  the  velocity  around  it,  and  causes  a 
body  to  move  away  from  that  center  precisely  the  same  dis- 
tance in  each  second,  whether  the  body  be  a  grain  of  sand 
or  a  planet;  but  that  when  a  change  of  the  distance  of  revo- 
lution involves  a  change  of  the  weight  of  the  revolving  mass, 
then  the  strain  upon  the  agency  which  holds  that  revolving 
mass  to  the  center  is  also  changed  correspondingly.  Dr. 
Lodge  and  others  stoutly  maintain  the  contrary  of  this,  name- 
ly, that  it  is  the  mass  and  not  the  weight  which  determines 
the  strain  on  the  string.  But,  while  you  probably  intended 
to  support  their  view,  the  matter  appears  so  plain  and  simple 
that  your  common  sense  seems,  unwittingly,  to  have  asserted 
itself  and  you  really  admitted  the  very  opposite. 

The  importance  of  this  point  does  not  wholly  lie  in  its  ap- 
plication to  the  measurement  of  the  strain  upon  the  agency 
holding  a  planet  in  its  orbit,  but  mainly  in  its  application  to 
the  measurement  of  the  inertia  and  momentum  of  matter. 
But  this  phase,  "in  view  of"  the  "argument  and  '  .  .  .  the 
answer  to  Prof.  A's  criticism  of  it,"  you  "do  not  feel  that  it 
is  worth  while  to  argue  the  matter."  This  appears  to  admit 
of  either  of  two  meanings  of  diametrically  opposite  signifi- 
cance. Let  the  reader  decide  which,  if  either,  is  really  jus- 
tified by  the  facts.  , 

239.  This  completes  the  answering  of  all  your  criticisms, 
and  it  does  seem  that,  to  a  Martian  mind  absolutely  without 
prepossession,  not  one  shred  of  validity  remains  to  a  single 
one  of  them.  On  the  contrary,  you  undoubtedly  regard  them 
as  absolutely  unscathed  and,  like  the  main  theories  which 
they  support,  still  as  impregnable  as  the  rock  of  Gibraltar. 
You  will,  therefore,  not  object,  it  is  hoped,  to  their  being  sub- 


240]        LETTER  OF  TRANSMITTAL  OF  DR.  C's  CRITICISM          421 

mitted  to  the  arbitrament  of  our  contemporaries  and  our  pos- 
terity, essentially  as  in  their  present  form. 


LETTER  OF  TRANSMITTAL  OF  DR.  C'S  CRITICISM 


240.—  Sept.  15,  1915. 

Dear  Mr.  McLennan: — I  am  returning  to  you  the  book  on 
Cosmical  Evolution  together  with  some  comments  of  mine  on 
the  various  parts  of  the  work.  You  will  observe  that  there 
is  evidence  that  I  have  spent  some  time  and  thought  on  the 
subject.  I  have  in  fact  read  the  whole  work  carefully  twice 
and  a  considerable  portion  of  it  three  times.  In  fact  I  may 
say  that  I  have  not  read  any  other  book  within  a  year  with 
so  great  care.  I  wish  I  might  say  that  I  think  the  work  of 
value  commensurate  with  the  labor  it  represents.  I  am  much 
impressed  with  the  extent  of  your  reading  and  believe  that 
you  have  in  hand  material  from  which  a  book  of  much  inter- 
est and  real  value  might  be  prepared.  On  the  other  hand  I 
must  join  with  Dr.  A  in  urging  upon  you  the  futility  of  pub- 
lishing the  work  in  its  present  form.  My  reasons  for  this 
are  set  forth  in  some  detail  in  the  comments.  Here  I  wish 
only  to  apologize  for  going  out  of  my  way  to  advise  as  to  the 
course  you*  are  to  pursue.  I  trust  that  it  will  be  taken  as  it 
is  intended,  as  an  evidence  of  a  very  sincere  desire  that  you 
may  do  the  thing  which  it  seems  to  me  would  be  of  value  and 
refrain  from  doing  the  thing  which  can,  in  my  judgment,  re- 
sult in  nothing  other  than  disappointment  to  you. 

In  case  there  are  any  matters  in  the  comments  concern- 
ing which  you  wish  further  discussion,  would  it  not  be  pos- 
sible for  you  to  come  to for  a  day  some  time  this 

fall?  I  should  be  very  glad  to  meet  you  and  to  go  more  at 
length  into  any  matters  which  you  might  wish  to  discuss. 

In  one  of  your  letters  of  last  summer  you  suggested  that 
you  should  publish  whatever  I  might  wish  to  send  to  you 
concerning  the  book.  I  trust  that  you  will  agree  with  me  that 
this  would  be  unwise.  If  what  I  have  done  is  of  any  service 


422  APPENDIX  A  [241 

to  you  I  shall  be  very  glad.  I  should  not,  however,  be  will- 
ing to  appear  to  have  engaged  in  any  controversy  over  the 
matter  and  fear  that  the  printing  of  comments,  as  you  sug- 
gested, would  be  understood  in  that  light. 

You  will  find  what  I  have  written  to  be  merely  disjointed 
notes  on  points  which  seemed  to  be  of  importance.  It  is 
likely  that  I  have  in  places  repeated  myself  and  that  I  have 
failed  to  make  my  meaning  clear  in  other  places.  If  so  I 
will  be  glad  to  discuss  the  obscure  points  further.  If  I  seem 
to  have  been  anywhere  too  severe  in  my  comments  please 
believe  that  I  have  not  intended  them  to  have  any  personal 
bearing. 

REPLY  TO  DR.  C'S  LETTER 


241.—  Oct.  17,  1915. 

Dear.  Dr. : — I  desire  to  express  my  gratefulness 

to  you  for  the  immense  labor  you  have  devoted  to  this  sub- 
ject; which  is  far  and  away  ahead  of  any  previous  effort. 
Your  investigation  has  been  very  valuable  to  me,  especially 
in  the  two  or  three  mathematical  flaws  which  you  picked  out, 
and  which,  though  not  affecting  any  essential  point,  are  yet 
very  objectionable  in  a  work  of  this  kind. 

Of  course,  in  the  main,  as  was  to  be  expected,  we  sadly 
differ  practically  on  everything.  Naturally  there  is  much 
disappointment  at  your  failure  to  see  the  new  theory  in  its 
true  plan  of  preliminary  assumptions  or  premises  to  be  proved 
or  disproved  by  the  numerous  phenomena  of  Nature  exam- 
ined in  connection  with  these  premises.  This  of  course 
caused  your  failure  to  appreciate  the  discussion  of  these  phe- 
nomena with  reference  to  the  miain  purpose  they  were  in- 
tended to  serve. 

As  to  the  points  on  which  we  essentially  differ,  the  writer 
really  feels  loath  to  express  himself  point  blank  in  opposition 
to  the  views  of  one  to  whom  he  is  under  such  deep  obliga- 
tions. Yet  the  claims  of  science  are  to  be  regarded  above 
all  other  considerations,  and  for  this  reason  one  must  express 
his  honest  thoughts  on  such  subjects  with  firmness  and  fair- 


241]  REPLY  TO  DR.   C's  LETTER  423 

ness  to  the  truth  as  he  sees  it.  But  however  opposed  our 
views  and  however  vigorous  our  expressions  regarding  points 
on  which  we  emphatically  disagree,  it  is  believed  that  you 
will  willingly  concede  and  bear  in  mind  with  the  writer  that 
not  the  slightest  reflection  is  at  any  time  involved  in  the  dis- 
cussion; nothing  but  the  kindliest  feelings  and  the  very  best 
intentions  on  the  part  of  both. 

The  suggestion  of  not  publishing  your  criticism  in  full 
will  be  complied  with;  and  it  is  thought  best  that  the  same 
rule  should  apply  also  to  the  others  so  far  as  to  refer  anony- 
mously to  all  three  as  Dr.  A,  Dr.  B,  and  Dr .  C .  However  your 
discussion  of  the  subject  is  of  too  much  interest  to  the  gen- 
eral reader  to  omit  it  entirely,  and  therefore  it  is  planned  that 
just  so  much  of  each  important  criticism  is  to  be  given  as 
will  make  the  reply  thereto  intelligible. 

The  writer  feels  very  grateful  to  you  for  your  valuable 
services  and  your  kindly  intentions  and  advice.  If  you  ever 
should  be  in  need  of  similar  services,  and  you  should  consider 
his  acceptable,  you  are  assured  that  he  will  be  very  pleased 
to  render  them  in  the  same  spirit. 


REPLY  TO  DR.  C'S  CRITICISM 


242.  (16)     All  that  is  contended  for  here  is  that  about  as 
many  scientific  authorities  give  the  sum-statement  of  the  law 
of  gravitation  as  give  the  product-statement  of  it;  and  that, 
while  this  is  not  a  matter  of  great  importance,  yet  it  shows  a 
looseness  of  expression  which  ought  not  to  exist  in  science. 
It  is  not  maintained  that  the  sum-statement  is  correct;    so 
your  proof  of  the  product-statement  is  uncalled  for. 

In  assuming  an  essential  difference  in  the  two  statements, 
you  say  that  "the  author  twists  a  common  expression  into  a 
meaning  which  is  never  given  it  in  mathematics."  To  this 
may  be  reiterated  what  was  said  to  Dr.  B,  that  if  the  masses 
are  5  and  6,  and  attraction  varies  as  the  masses,  then  the 
attraction  varies  as  5  and  6,  which  are  11.  It  is  impossible 
not  to  see  clearly  that  the  "twisting",  if  any  exists,  is  entirely 
on  the  part  of  those  who  maintain  that  5  and  6  are  30.  It 
appears  to  be  solely  a  question  of  grammar  and  common  horse 
sense. 

243.  (17)     You  say  a  single  body  has  no  attraction  what- 
ever beyond  its  own  boundary.     Now  you  admit  that  there 
are  substances  so  subtle  that  they  are  not  amenable  to  grav- 
ity.   Suppose  a  single  body  of  ordinary  matter  in  one  corner 
of  the  universe,  and  another  body  suddenly  changed  from  the 
subtle  form  to  the  ordinary  form  of  matter  in  another  corner 
of  the  universe.     Since  there  was  no  attraction  before  the 
second  ordinary  body  existed,  then  the  attraction  between 
the  two  bodies  must  come  instantly  into  existence  throughout 
all  of  the  almost  infinite  distance  separating  the  two  bodies. 
This  may  seem  to  you  a  simple  matter  of  science:  to  others  it 
seems  more  like  magic  or  legerdemain. 

244.  (18)     According  to  your  views  it  is  perfectly  simple 
and  natural  that  the  doubling  of  the  mass  of  the  Moon  at  one 
end  of  a  medium  intervening  between  it  and  the  Earth  should 
produce  in  that  medium  precisely  the  same  effects  as  the 


244]  REPLY  TO  DR.  C's  CRITICISM  425 

doubling  of  the  mass  of  the  Earth  at  the  other  end.  To  others 
this  seems  unreasonable  and  absurd.  It  is  admitted  that  the 
teaching  is  fully  in  accordance  with  the  theory  of  gravitation ; 
but  it  does  seem,  nevertheless,  that  the  attractive  stress  pro- 
duced in  the  medium  ought  to  bear  some  proportion  to  the 
mass  of  the  attracting  body.  Denoting  Earth  and  Moon  by 
E  and  M  respectively,  considering  them  kept  apart  by  Sir  R. 
S.  Ball's  rigid  rod  at  unit  distance  from  one  another,  and 

doubling. E  or  M,  (2E M),  or  (E  -  2M), 

then  according  to  the  law  of  gravitation  we  have  the  gravita- 
tive  pressure  exerted  by  them  upon  the  rod:=2EM=160,  M 
being  considered  as  unity.  But  if  we  double  the  Earth's  mass 
by  placing  another  Earth  at  an  equal  unit  distance  on  the 

opposite  side  of  the  Moon,  (E M  E),  then  the 

gravitative  pressure  on  the  rods  between  the  two  bodies  will 
be  represented  by  EM+E2/4-ME=E2/4=:1600.  Again,  doubling 
the  Moon's  mass  by  placing  another  Moon  at  an  equal  unit 

distance  on   the  opposite   side   of  the  Earth,    (M   E 

M),  the  gratitative  pressure  on  the  rods  between  the 

bodies  will  be  represented  by  ME+M2/4— EM=M2/4=l/4. 
Thus,  considering  the  same  two  bodies  at  the  same  distances 
from  each  other  and  doubling  the  one  or  the  other  in  differ- 
ent ways,  we  have,  by  the  theory  of  gravitation,  a  value  of  the 
gravitative  strain  upon  the  medium  between  them  represented 
by  640  in  the  first  case,  6400  in  the  second,  and  I  in  the  third. 
In  the  first  case,  doubling  the  one  body  or  the  other  gave  the 
result;  in  the  second  case,  doubling  the  one  gave  6400  times 
the  result  of  doubling  the  other  in  the  third  case! 

You  assert  these  strange  results  are  verified  by  actual  ex- 
periments, such  as  those  of  Cavendish  and  others.  Such  ex- 
periments, however,  appear  to  have  little  if  any  justification 
for  this  assertion.  The  two  small  balls  suspended  by  a  torsion 
thread  very  close  to  two  large  balls  gave  rather  uncertain  re- 
sults, even  when  completely  housed  upder  glass  in  the  com- 
parative stillness  of  a  deep  basement,  with  the  body  heat  of 
the  observer  mostly  excluded,  and  the  results  observed  with 
a  telescope.  And,  in  any  case,  even  if  the  results  so  obtained 


426  APPENDIX  A  [244 

were  quite  positive,  they  would  have  little  if  any  bearing  on 
the  theoretic  results  above  mentioned. 

Taking  the  case  of  the  Earth  and  a  pound  ball  at  the 
Earth's  surface:  doubling  the  ball  doubles  its  gravitative 
strain  for  the  Earth,  or  doubling  the  Earth,  within  its  present 
confines,  doubles  its  gravitative  strain  for  the  ball,  and  thus, 
it  is  maintained,  the  law  is  proved;  and  so  it  is  in  a  superfi- 
cial way.  But  the  doubling  of  the  ball  adds  only  the  influ- 
ence of  another  pound,  while  doubling  the  Earth  adds  the 
potential  influence  of  trillions  of  trillions  of  pounds;  and  this 
potential  influence  would  exist  even  in  the  absence  of  all 
other  bodies  but  the  one  in  which  it  has  its  source.  Morover 
this  potential  energy  is  real  energy. 

"The  word  potential  does  not  imply  that  this  energy  is  not 
real  and  exists  only  in  potentiality:  it  is  energy  and  has  as 
much  claim  to  the  title  as  it  has  in  any  other  form  in  which 
it  may  appear."* 

It  is  not  science  to  regard  bringing  a  pound  ball  into 
existence  as  equivalent  in  the  resulting  gravitative  energy  to 
bringing  the  Earth  into  existence,  and  there  must  be  some- 
thing radically  wrong  with  the  theory  which  asserts  the 
equivalence  of  these  gravitative  energies.  And  neither  is  it 
science  to  assert  that,  if  the  ball  drops  out  of  existence,  or 
into  the  Earth,  the  gravitative  energy  of  both  bodies  goes 
instantly  and  totally  out  of  existence  because  of  that  event. 
What  becomes  of  the  energy  in -the  latter  case?  If  there 
were  a  medium  which  transmitted  it  by  movement  or  action 
between  the  bodies,  did  that  medium  crawl  into  a  hole  too 
when  the  two  bodies  coalesced?  or,  if  not,  why  does  not  the 
movement  or  action  due  to  the  joint  gravitative  energy  of  the 
united  bodies  continue  in  it  as  before? 

Is  it  not  perfectly  conceivable  that  an  ethereal  atmosphere 
around  the  Earth  may  in  some  way  be  the  seat  of  terrestrial 
gravity?  There  seems  nothing  unreasonable  or  extremely  im- 
probable about  such  a  conception.  In  such  an  atmosphere 
would  of  course  reside  the  power  of  attraction,  even  if  all 
other  bodies  were  swept  out  of  existence.  Yet  the  law  of 

*WiIliam    Garnett,    Ency.    Brit.,    Art.    Energy. 


245]  REPLY   TO   DR.    C's   CRITICISM  427 

gravitation  arbitrarily  steps  in  to  say  that  this  is  impossible 
because  EX 0—0!  "Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before 
Me"! 

At  considerable  length  you  intimate  the  unreasonableness 
of  the  views  regarding  this  subject  expressed  in  the  work. 
But  may  it  not  be  barely  possible  that  a  mote  in  your  own 
eye  may  account  for  the  beam  that  you  see  in  your  brother's? 
*  245.  (19)  You  say  "the  law  of  gravitation  itself  assumes 
neither  the  existence  of  a  connective  medium  nor  the  con- 
trary," but  that  all  scientists  do  assume  such  a  medium  "to 
account  for  the  observed  phenomena."  In  this,  therefore,  we 
all  appear  to  agree.  You  say  gravity  is  not  an  entity  which 
is  radiated  out  from  a  body,  but  an  "action",  a  "push  or  a 
pull".  Now  how  is  that  action  transmitted  through  the  space 
between  one  body  and  another?  Does  it  originate  in  the 
attracting  body  and  is  then  conveyed  to  the  medium  and 
transmitted  by  it  through  the  space  between  the  two  bodies? 
If  so,  how  is  it  possible  for  this  transmission  to  take  place  in 
a  single  instant  of  time,  as  the  law  of  gravitation  implies? 
You  very  emphatically  deprecate  the  "unreasonable"  views 
and  "assumptions"  in  the  work  regarding  the  new  theory, 
instead  of  the  "proofs"  which  you  say  ought  to  have  been 
offered  instead.  But  is  it  "reasonable"  for  you  to  "assume" 
the  existence  of  any  medium  which  will  instantly  convey  a 
movement  or  action  of  its  parts  to  almost  infinite  instances? 
And,  if  you  reject  this  alternative,  there  remains  only  the 
theory  which  you  are  contesting,  that  the  action  continually 
resides  in  the  connecting  medium  itself;  which  thus  perfectly 
accounts  for  the  instantaneous  action  through  all  space  occu- 
pied by  this  medium. 

You  simplify  Sir  R.  S.  Ball's  illustration  of  the  equality  of 
attraction  of  two  different  bodies  by  the  statement — "The 
attractive  effect  of  a  single  particle  upon  the  remainder  of 
the  universe  is  exactly  the  same  as  that  of  the  remainder  of 
the  universe  upon  the  single  particle.  This  is  what  the  law 
of  gravitation  implies  and  this  agrees  with  our  experience." 
There  are  some,  however,  who  humbly  confess  that  they  did 
not  know  our  experience  had  been  so  extensive.  A  reason- 


428  APPENDIX  A  [245 

able  view  would  hardly  pretend  to  such  large  claims,  and 
would  assign  a  particle's  influence  within  only  a  very  limited 
sphere  determined  and  specially  modified  by  the  nature  and 
mass  of  the  particle. 

At  considerable  length  you  criticise  the  classification  of 
force  as  a  form  of  energy,  stating  that  by  doing  so  the  author 
can  neither  correctly  understand  the  writings  of  scientific 
men  nor  make  himself  understood  by  them  because,  no  doubt, 
there  is  such  a  great  difference  in  the  meaning  of  these  two 
words;  after  which  you  define  the  words  to  illustrate  this 
difference.  Very  likely  you  are  aware  that  Prof.  Tait  once 
discarded  the  idea  of  Force  entirely  and  used  in  its  stead  the 
conception  of  energy;  but  you  perhaps  may  not  have  read 
the  opinion  of  other  scientists  who  maintained  that  the  ad- 
vantage of  the  exchange  was  not  very  apparent  owing  to  the 
ultimate  similarity  of  the  meanings  of  the  two  words.  It 
seems  the  same  thing  may  be  said  of  your  definitions,  a  dis- 
tinction without  a  difference. 

Force  you  define  as  an  action,  a  pusih  or  a  pull.  To  accom- 
plish work  you  say  "a  force  must  be  exerted",  and  "there 
must  be  a  motion  in  the  direction  of  the  force.  The  measure 
of  the  quantity  of  work  done  is  the  product  of  the  force  ex- 
erted multiplied  by  the  distance  the  body  acted  on  moves  in 
the  direction  of  force".  "When  a  body  can  do  work  it  is  said 
to  possess  energy  and  the  quantity  of  energy  is  directly 
measured  by  the  quantity  of  work  the  body  can  do."  These 
are  your  definitions.  Compared  more  closely  they  are — To 
do  work  a  body  must  exert  a  force:  when  a  body  does  work 
it  possesses  energy,  which  is  measured  by  the  work  done: 
the  force  which  a  body  possesses  does  work  which  is  the 
measure  of  that  force;  and  this  same  work  is  also  the  meas- 
ure of  the  energy  which  the  body  possesses.  In  brief,  the 
work  done  by  the  body  is  equally  a  measure  both  of  the  force 
which  the  body  exerts,  and  of  the  energy  which  the  body 
expends,  in  doing  work.  It  is  an  axiom  in  mathematics  that 
things  which  are  equal  to  the  same  thing  are  equal  to  each 
other.  Wherein,  then,  is  the  great  difference  between  the 


245]  REPLY  TO  DR.   C's   CRITICISM  429 

meanings  of  the  two  words,  which  you  say  vitiates  the  whole 
body  of  my  argument? 

You  hold  again  that  "there  is  no  generation  of  energy  in 
the  gravitational  case  any  more  than  in  the  case  of  the  balls 
held  together  by  the  elastic  string",  and  therefore  you  main- 
tain that  there  is  no  more  violation  of  the  law  of  the  con- 
servation of  energy  in  the  one  case  any  more  than  in  the 
other,  and  that  the  allegation  of  such  violation  on  the  writer's 
part  is  merely  a  "bogie  man"  which  will  disappear  when  he 
sees  things  in  their  proper  relations.  But  let  us  look  into  the 
case  more  closely. 

If  you  mean  in  the  last  quotation  that  there  is  no  genera- 
tion of  energy  at  all  in  the  gravitational  case,  you  contradict 
your  statement  that  a  body  which  does  gravitational  work 
possesses  energy  which  is  expended  in  doing  the  work.  If 
not,  the  force  which  you  say  is  exerted  by  the  body  in  doing 
work  is  not  at  all  similar  to  the  string  which  does  the  same 
work.  You  say  the  force  is  not  an  entity:  the  string  is;  it 
is  even  material.  In  the  case  of  the  string,  the  bodies  exert 
no  energy  or  force  whatever.  They  are  merely  passive,  the 
material  strength  of  the  string  taking  the  place  of  such  force 
or  energy. 

Clearly,  then,  there  is  no  radiation  of  energy  at  all  in  the 
case  of  the  string.  But  how  is  it  in  the  case  under  the  law 
of  gravitation?  You  admit  that  a  body  exerts  a  force  which 
does  work  upon  another  distant  body,  the  action  of  the  force 
being  transmitted  through  the  intervening  space  by  means 
of  an  intervening  medium,  or  in  some  other  way.  You  call 
this  an  expenditure  of  energy  by  the  attracting  body.  And 
as,  in  the  absence  of  external  causes,  the  body  may  continue 
doing  work  forever  by  this  expenditure  of  energy,  in  causing 
'  another  body  to  move  in  a  very  elongated  ellipse,  e.  g.,  why 
is  not  the  continual  expenditure  of  energy  by  the  body,  with- 
out the  slightest  diminution  through  all  time  and  without  the 
least  reduction  of  any  other  of  the  body's  properties — why 
is  this  not  a  violation  of  the  principle  of  the  conversation  of 
energy?  In  Arts.  19  and  67  of  the  work  are  given  quotations 
from  such  authorities  as  Laing,  Tait,  Tyndall,  Guthrie,  Croll, 


430  APPENDIX  A  [246 

and  Faraday  to  the  effect  that  this  is  a  violation  of  the  con- 
servation of  energy.  Is  the  "bogie  man"  of  which  you  speak 
really  theirs  or  your  own? 

246.  (20)  (a)  Regarding  Newton's  Prop.  LXXI,  that  a 
spherical  shell  attracts  an  outside  particle  as  if  its  mass  were 
concentrated  at  its  center,  you  state  that  it  is  not  at  all 
affected  by  the  demonstration  given  in  this  article  because 
Newton's  assumption  of  uniform  distribution  of  the  attracting 
particles  on  the  shell  is  not  adhered  to  therein.  Answering 
the  special  question — "How  can  the  attraction  of  a  single  pair 
of  particles  of  the  shell  vary  with  the  distance  at  which  it 
acts,  as  compared  with  its  attractive  value  at  the  center, 
when  Newton's  theorem  expressly  states  that  its  attraction 
is  precisely  the  same  under  all  circumstances  as  if  it  existed 
at  the  center?" — you  state  that  "Newton's  Prop.  LXXI  says 
NOTHING  AT  ALL  ABOUT  THE  ATTRACTION  OF  ANY 
ASSEMBLAGE  OF  DISCRETE  POINTS  FOR  ANY  OTHER 
POINT.  It  makes  no  such  statement  as  is  attributed  in  the 
above  quotation  either  explicitly  or  implicitly.  The  prop- 
osition refers  only  to  a  complete  spherical  shell  of  uniform 
thickness  and  density". 

Now  Thomson  and  Tait  (Nat.  Phil.,  sec.  488)  used  a  pre- 
cisely similar  method,  taking  the  attraction  of  a  single  pair  of 
opposite  elements  of  the  shell  upon  an  external  body,  P,  for 
a  mathematical  demonstration  of  the  truth  of  this  very  prop- 
osition of  Newton's.  And,  if  the  proposition  were  true,  why 
should  they  not?  No  one  can  deny  that  a  uniform  shell  is 
built  up  wholly  of  pairs  of  particles  at  opposite  ends  of 
diameters  of  the  shell,  or  that  the  two  elements  of  each  such 
pair  are  equably  distributed  with  respect  to  the  center  or 
surface  of  the  shell.  Such  pairs  of  opposite  particles  are,  in 
fact,  the  ultimate  unit  components  of  the  shell  with  respect  to 
its  central  concentration,  and  such  components,  with  nothing 
else,  can  of  course  be  distributed  equably  to  form  the  sub- 
stance of  a  uniform  shell. 

But  the  most  vital  objection  to  Newton's  theorem,  because 
the  most  obvious  and  undeniable,  is  that  the  attraction  of  any 
number  of  such  pairs  of  particles,  however  equably  distribu- 


246]  REPLY  TO  DR.   C's   CRITICISM  431 

• 

ted  in  the  shell,  as  compared  with  the  attraction  of  the  same 
number  of  pairs  of  particles  at  the  center,  IS  NEVER  THE 
SAME  AT  ANY  TWO  DIFFERENT  DISTANCES  OF  THE 
ATTRACTED  BODY.  The  attraction  of  not  one  such  pair  of 
particles  conforms  to  the  truth  of  Newton's  proposition.  You 
say  that  this  is  only  "nearly  correct"  because  "for  one  partic- 
ular angular  position  of  the  points  they  do  have  the  same  at- 
traction for  an  external  point  as  if  they  were  situated  at  the 
center."  But  this  statement  is  itself  only  "nearly  correct"  be- 
cause it  is  true  only  for  a  certain  distance  of  the  external 
point.  When  the  distance  of  the  external  body  varies  with 
respect  to  the  radius  of  the  shell,  the  "one  particular  angu- 
lar position"  in  which  the  pairs  of  particles  conform  to  New- 
ton's proposition  also  changes;  so  that,  generally,  for  all  dis- 
tances, not  a  single  such  pair  of  particles  conforms  to  New- 
ton's proposition. 

It  is  true  that  the  attraction  of  a  portion  of  these  pairs  of 
particles  is  in  excess,  while  that  of  most  of  the  remainder  is 
deficient,  as  compared  with  their  attraction  at  the  center. 
But  your  assumption  that  these  "opposite  effects  do  actually 
offset  one  another"  can  not  be  true  generally,  if  indeed  in  any 
single  instance,  because,  as  already  stated,  the  ratio  of  the 
one  to  the  other  continually  changes  with  change  of  the  dis- 
tance at  which  they  act.  This  fact,  together  with  the  other 
fact  that  the  ratio  of  the  attraction  anywhere  in  the  shell  and 
at  the  center,  of  a  single  such  pair  of  particles  also  varies 
with  the  distance  at  which  it  acts,  clearly  shows  Newton's 
Prop.  LXXI  to  be  a  mere  approximation,  which  is  nearly  true 
for  very  great  relative  distances,  though  never  exactly  so  far 
any  distance. 

(b)  Even  Newton  himself  had  doubts  of  the  general  accur- 
acy of  his  proposition.  In  Prop.  VIII,  Book  III  of  the  Prin- 
cipia  he  says:  "I  was  yet  in  doubt  whether  that  reciprocal 
duplicate  proportion  did  accurately  hold,  or  but  nearly  so,  in 
the  total  force  compounded  of  so  many  partial  ones .  For  it 
might  be  that  the  proportion,  which  accurately  enough  took 
place  in  the  greater  distances,  should  be  wide  of  the  truth 
near  the  surface  of  the  planet,  where  the  distances  of  the 


432  APPENDIX  A  [246 

particles  are  unequal  and  their  situation  dissimilar.  But  by 
the  help  of  Props.  LXXV  and  LXXVI,  Book  I,  and  their  Corro- 
laries,  I  was  at  last  satisfied  of  the"  truth  of  the  proposition, 
as  it  now  lies  before  us."  It  is  obvious,  however,  to  any  one 
who  will  take  the  trouble  to  compare  them,  that  Props. 
LXXV  and  LXXVI  are  ultimately  and  essentially  based  upon 
Prop.  LXXI  itself. 

Prof.  Young  also  refers  to  the  difficulty  as  follows :  "When 
the  distance  between  attracting  bodies  is  large,  as  compared 
with  thei  rown  magnitude,  then  reckoning  the  distance  be- 
tween their  centers  of  mass  as  their  true  distance,  the 
formula  is  sensibly  true  for  them,  at  it  would  be  for  mere 
particles.  When,  however,  the  distance  is  not  thus  great,  the 
calculation  of  the  attraction  becomes  a  very  serious  prob- 
lem".* 

(c)  (Before  leaving  this  subject,  it  may  be  stated  to  the 
reader  that  this  proposition,  which  is  perhaps  the  main  corn- 
erstone of  the  theory  of  gravitation,  as,  without  it,  the  law 
of  gravitation  could  not  be  applied,  has  been  further  discussed 
during  1915-16  by  Dr.  C  and  the  writer  to  such  extent  as 
would  really  require  a  volume  for  its  own  presentation  alone. 
Dr.  C  (whom  the  writer  has  never  seen)  is  evidently  an  ardent 
student  of  Nature  himself.  Although  he  most  firmly  believes 
that  the  present  writer  is  entirely  in  error  and  Newton  and 
his  followers  wholly  in  the  right,  he  has  nevertheless,  with 
wonderful  patience  and  at  an  immense  expenditure  of  time 
and  labor,  with  no  other  motive  than  pure  love  of  the  sub- 
ject and  generosity  of  heart,  endeavored  to  set  the  author 
right  and  dissuade  him  from  a  venutre  which  he  felt  sure 
was  bound  to  end  in  failure.  The  writer  desires  here  to  ex- 
press his  deep  obligation  to  him  for  the  invaluable  benefits 
derived  from  his  logical  and  mathematical  skill,  as  well  as  for 
the  great  pleasure  of  his  perfect  courtesy  and  civility  in  all 
the  discussions. 

The  preceding  discussions  of  this  subject  regarded  only 
the  ratio  of  the  absolute  amount  of  the  surface,  to  that  of 
the  central,  attraction  of  the  shell  upon  P;  the  variation  of 
*Gen.  Astron.,  Art.  162. 


246]  REPLY  TO  DR.  C's  CRITICISM  433 

which  ratio  with  variation  of  the  distance  of  P  was,  and  is 
still,  regarded  by  the  writer  as  a  vital  objection  to  Newton's 
proposition.  Dr.  C,  however,  suggested  that  it  is  not  the 
amount  of  the  surface  attraction  of  any  zone  of  the  shell 
upon  P  that  ought  to  be  compared  with  the  attraction  of  that 
zone  at  the  center,  but  the  component  of  that  attraction  which 
acts  in  the  direction  PC,  or  the  line  joining  P  with  the  center 
of  the  shell.  This  is  really  all  that  is  effective  in  causing  P 
to  approach  the  center;  and  Dr.  C  intimated  that,  if  the  sur- 
face attraction  of  the  shell  were  resolved  into  its  elements 
and  only  the  portion  acting  along  the  line  from  P  towards 
the  center  be  compared  with  the  attraction  of  the  shell  at 
the  center,  the  facts  would  agree  precisely  with  Newton's 
proposition.  So,  in  compliance  with  this  view,  a  shell  of 
radius  10  (representing  any  absolute  size)  was  divided  into 
various  numbers  of  zones,  each  of  equal  thickness  along  the 
line  PC,  and  therefore  of  equal  surface  and  mass,  and  the 
attraction  of  a  particle  at  the  middle  line  of  each  zone  (which 
is  the  same  distance  from  P  all  around  the  zone)  upon  P  was 
determined  and  resolved  along  the  line  PC.  Various  cases, 
depending  on  the  distance  of  P  and  the  number  of  equal  zones 
into  which  the  shell  was  divided,  were  considered,  the  attrac- 
tion of  a  particle  at  the  middle  line  of  each  zone  and  resolved 
along  PC,  determined,  all  of  which  were  averaged  in  each 
case  for  the  whole  shell  and  compared  with  the  attraction  of 
a  particle  at  the  center.  The  results  are  far  too  voluminous 
to  be  given  here  in  detail;  but  the  general  results,  for  two 
distances,  may  be  briefly  stated  as  follows: 


Distance 
of  P  from 
shell-center 

No.  of 
equal  zones 
of  shell. 

Av.  resolved 
elemental  f  of 
surface  on  P. 

Elemental  f 
at  center  of 
shell  on  P. 

CP—  R—  10 

40 

80 
100 
40 
100 
200 

.004662000995 
.004763418695 
.00485104438 
.002496405 
.0024995092 
.002500000935 

.01 

H 

.0025 

These  results  do  not  depend  on  diagrammatic  construc- 
tion, which  would  be  unreliable,  but  on  formulae  derived  from 


434  *    APPENDIX  A  [246 

actual  trigonometric  measurement  of  the  sines,  cosines,  and 
distances  involved,  mostly  correct  to  10  decimal  places.  We 
see  from  them  that  the  average  elemental  attraction,  resolved 
along  PC,  of  the  surface  of  a  shell  divided  into  100  zones,  e.  g., 
is  less  than  half  of  the  elemental  attraction  at  the  center, 
when  the  distance  CP=R=10;  while  for  the  same  shell  sim- 
ilarly divided  the  surface  and  the  central  attractions  are  very 
nearly  the  same  when  the  distance  CP=2R=20,  It  appears 
also  that,  at  all  external  distances  of  P,  the  average  surface 
attraction  of  the  shell  continually  increases  as  the  zonal  sub- 
division becomes  greater  and  greater.  But  the  rate  of  this 
increase  is  only  1/3  per  cent,  of  the  amount  required  for 
equality  by  the  ratio  of  the  two  attractions  at  the  shorter 
distance;  while,  at  the  greater  distance,  the  rate  of  increase 
is  88  1/3  per  cent  of  that  amount:  so  that,  by  greater  and 
greater  subdivision,  long  before  the  ratio  would  have  arrived 
at  equality  at  the  lesser  distance,  it  would  have  approached, 
or  possibly  surpassed,  equality  at  the  greater  distance. 

In  reply  to  this  Dr.  C  admits  that  "the  method  you  are 
using  is  legitimate  and  is,  in  fact,  essentially  that  used  in 
every  direct  proof  of  Newton's  theorem".  But  he  regards  it 
as  not  legitimate  at  the  lesser  distance  because  P  at  the  sur- 
face of  the  shell  is  not  external  to  the  shell  and  therefore  "is 
not  included  under  the  particular  theorem  cited"  and  thus 
'"'would  not  constitute  a  disproof  of  the  Newtonian  theorem." 
But,  even  if  it  be  true  that  a  particle  at  the  surface  of  the 
shell  is  not  external  to  it,  what  difference  would  it  make  in 
the  result  obtained  if  a  hairbreadth  more  were  added  to  the 
distance  of  P,  which  would  then  certainly  make  it  external 
to  the  shell  and  the  method  perfectly  legitimate? 

(d)  When  P  is  carried  within  the  shell,  another  univer- 
sally acceptf/d  theorem*  is  shattered.  Let  the  same  shell  be 
again  diviued  into  various  numbers  of  equal  zones,  and  let 
P  be  placed  between  one  of  the  zones  (called  the  cap-zone) 
and  all  the  rest,  in  the  case  of  each  number  of  divisions.  Pro- 
ceeding in  the  same  manner  as  before,  the  following  resolved 
values  of  the  average  attractions  of  each  zone  are  obtained: 

*Prop.  LXX,  Bk.  I,  Principia. 


246]  REPLY  TO  DR.   C's   CRITICISM  435 

Four-Zone  Shell 

Av.  f  upon  P  of  cap-zone 00707107 

Av.  f  upon  F  of  2nd  zone    002o 

Av.  f  upon  P  of  3rd  zone     00486654 

Av.  f  upon  P  of  4th  zone    00441235 

Cap-zone  f  is  less  than  2/3  that  of  the  rest  of  shell. 

Ten-Zone  Shell 

Av.  f  upon  P  of  cap-zone     01118028 

Av.  f  upon  P  of  2nd  zone 00266683 

Av.  f  upon  P  of  3rd  zone     003896743 

Av.  f  upon  P  of  4th  zone     004002067 

Av.  f  upon  P  of  5th  zone     003887814 

Av.  f  upon  P  of  6th  zone  003726779 

Av.  f  upon  P  of  7th  zone 003563381 

Av.  f  upon  P  of  8th  zone     .'. 003410818 

Av.  f  upon  P  of  9th  zone     003271332 

Av.  f  upon  P  of  10th  zone     003145016 

Cap-zone  f  is  less  than  1/3  that  of  rest  of  shell. 

Twenty-Zone  Shell 

Av.  f  upon  P  of  cap-zone  01581107 

Total  av.  f  s  of  other  19  zories  06999162 

Cap-zone  f  is  less  than  1/4  that  of  rest  of  shell.    And  so  on. 

From  this  it  is  clearly  seen  that  Newton's  Prop.  LXX,  that 
a  particle  inside  of  a  spherical  shell  is  not  attracted  in  any 
direction,  is  not  true,  except  at  the  center;  but  that,  on  the 
contrary,  the  attraction  of  the  shell  gradually  diminishes  upon 
the  particle  from  a  maximum  at  the  surface  to  zero  at  the  cen- 
ter. This  is  also  in  exact  conformity  with  the  similar  con- 
clusion arrived  at  from  entirely  different  premises  in  Art.  216. 

Regarding  the  results  in  this  case  Dr.  C  replied  as  fol- 
lows: "The  method  which  you  have  used  is  not  correct  and 
cannot  lead  to  correct  conclusions.  No  refinement  of  numer- 
ical exactness  will  be  of  value  so  long  as  this  method  is  used. 
These  calculations  are  wholly  valueless.  The  source 
of  the  error  lies  in  the  fact  that  when,  for  example,  you  dealt 
with  20  zones  and  computed  the  attractions  toward  and  away 
from  the  center,  you  wholly  neglected  the  cosine  factor  in 
the  case  of  the  cap.  ...  To  test  by  a  correct  method 
of  approximation,  select  a  given  point,  divide  the  shell  into 
two  segments  by  a  plane  passing  through  this  point,  divide 


436  APPENDIX  A  [246 

each  segment  into  a  considerable  number  of  zones — the  same 
in  each  case — and  compute  the  total  attraction  of  each  seg- 
ment. As  the  number  of  zones  is  increased — the  position  of 
the  internal  point  remaining  fixed—the  attractions  of  the  two 
segments  will  approach  numerical  equality." 

With  regard  to  Dr.  C's  first  criticism  above,  he  is  honestly, 
but  certainly  mistaken.  The  cosine  factor  has  been  used 
to  determine  the  attraction  of  the  cap-zone  precisely  the  same 
as  it  has  been  in  determining  that  of  any  other  zone.  In- 
deed, if  the  cosine  factor  had  not  been  so  used,  the  contrast 
would  have  been  still  more  pronounced,  as  that  factor  oper- 
ates to  reduce  the  attraction  rather  than  to  increase  it.  And 
as  for  Dr.  C's  own  idea  of  the  correct  method,  it  is  apparent 
that  he  has  entirely  failed  to  realize  that  equal  zonal  division 
of  two  different  segments  implies  different  values  of  the  zon- 
al attractions  of  these  segments.  Of  course  if  the  attractions 
of  the  zones  of  the  smaller  segment  are  equated  with  those 
of  the  larger  segment,  equality  might  thus  be  arrived  at; 
but  if  due  allowance  be  made  for  this  difference,  we  appear 
to  arrive  at  the  same  result  as  before. 

It  is  submitted  that  the  method  employed  is  absolutely 
fair.  The  whole  shell  is  divided  into  any  number  of  equal 
zones,  and  the  particle  P  is  placed  just  inside  of  one  of  them. 
What  is  there  impossible,  or  illogical,  or  unfair  about  that? 
The  only  reason  Dr.  C  assigns  is  the  wholly  baseless  one  of 
neglect  of  the  cosine  factor,  already  noticed. 

Indeed,  this  appears  to  be  just  another  splendid  illustra 
tion  of  the  effect  of  unconscious  bias.  Dr.  C,  in  common  with 
all  other  scientists,  regards  Newton's  theorem  as  unassail- 
able gospel  truth;  and,  if  any  fact  unexpectedly  bobs  up  in 
flat  contradiction  of  this  alleged  truth,  "then,"  in  the  words 
of  Prof.  Patterson,  "so  much  the  worse  for  the  fact." 

The  correspondence,  which  appears  to  end  here,  is  a 
most  interesting  one,  but  could  not  be  entered  into  more  fully 
in  this  work.  By  way  of  brief  recapitulation,  it  may  be 
stated  that  to  the  strictures  on  Newton's  theorems  regarding 
the  attraction  of  a  spherical  shell,  Dr.  C  at  first  offered  a 
mathematical  proof  of  electric  potential  as  applicable  to  the 


247]  REPLY   TO   DR.   C's   CRITICISM  437 

attraction  of  gravity.  When  it  was  replied  (Art.  216)  that 
this  mathematical  proof  is  not  applicable  to  the  one  as  to  the 
other,  Dr.  C  said  that  the  components  of  the  surface  attrac- 
tion of  the  shell,  being  partly  greater  and  partly  less  than  if 
placed  at  the  center,  would  presumably  average  the  same 
as  if  the  whole  were  placed  at  the  center.  When,  in  reply 
to  this,  it  was  shown  by  actual  calculation  that  this  was  not 
true,  Dr.  C  objected  that  the  method  employed,  that  of  cal- 
culating the  attraction  of  discrete  points  in  the  surface  of  the 
shell,  was  erroneous  and  not  at  all  implied  in  Newton's  the- 
orems, but  rather  the  attraction  of  a  continuous,  uniform  sur- 
face. When,  in  answer  to  this,  it  was  pointed  out  that  Sir 
William  Thomson  and  Prof.  P.  G.  Tait  had  used  the  same 
method  of  discrete  points  for  proving  the  same  theorem  re- 
ferred to,  and  also  when  Dr.  C's  own  method  of  continuous, 
uniform  surface  was  applied  and  found  equally  wanting,  Dr. 
C  held  that  the  error  lay  in  not  resolving  the  computed  sur- 
face attraction  in  the  direction  between  the  particle  and  the 
center  and  that,  if  this  were  done,  the  complete  harmony  of 
Newton's  theorems  with  the  facts  would  be  clearly  apparent. 
But  when  the  surface  attraction  of  the  shell  was  thus  re- 
solved in  the  manner  suggested  and  admitted  as  legitimate 
by  Dr.  C  himself,  and  was  still  more  clearly  shown  to  be 
flatly  contradictory  of  Newton's  theorems,  Dr.  C  appears  to 
have  arrived  at  the  end  of  his  resources.  These  last  compu- 
tations were  sent  to  him  on  June  24,  1916,  since  which  date 
up  to  the  time  of  correcting  the  final  proofs,  October  1916, 
no  word  has  been  received  from  him.  Possibly,  with  his 
no  doubt  still  unshaken  conviction  of  the  utter  absurdity  of 
the  idea  that  Newton  could  ever  be  shown  by  a  mere  ama- 
teur to  be  in  error,  he  regards  the  writer  as  absolutely  and 
irretrievably  incorrigible  and  all  further  efforts  for  his  refor- 
mation as  a  waste  of  time  and  energy.) 

247.  (21)  The  statement*  that  the  strength  of  gravity 
at  the  bottom  of  the  Harton  mine  ought  to  be  diminished  by 
twice  the  attraction  value  of  the  Earth-shell  above  the  bottom 

*Previously  made  in  the  body  of  the  work,  but  subsequently  elim- 
inated. 


438  APPENDIX  A  [247 

of  the  mine,  rather  than  by  that  value  itself,  as  mentioned 
by  Prof.  Young,  you  say  is  incorrect.  That,  however,  de- 
pends somewhat  on  whose  views  are  taken  as  the  standard. 
If,  according  to  the  law  of  gravitation,  a  shell  does  not  at- 
tract as  if  its  mass  were  concentrated  at  its  center,  as  seems 
to  be  clearly  shown  in  the  results  above  arrived  at  (Arts.  216, 
246),  then,  even  according  to  that  law,  Prof.  Young  and  your- 
self would  be  in  error;  and  under  the  circumstances,  it  is 
indeed  rather  a  difficult  matter  to  determine  the  effect  which 
the  shell  really  would  have  in  the  case.  But  there  is  some 
justification  in  your  claim,  as,  according  to  the  law  of  grav- 
itation, twice  the  amount  of  the  shell  could  hardly  be  the 
proper  amount  to  lessen  the  attraction,  any  more  than  just 
the  bare  amount  of  the  shell.  It  may  confidently  be  expected, 
however,  that,  for  many  miles  down  into  the  Earth-crust,  or 
about  to  where  the  temperature  is  so  great  as  to  profoundly 
affect  the  ordinary  constitution  of  matter,  the  value  of  the 
attraction  of  gravity  will  continue  to  increase  with  the  depth. 
And,  if  the  law  of  gravitation  be  really  inapplicable  to  the 
case,  as  is  here  claimed,  another  reasonable  deduction  is  that 
the  surface  or  crust  density  of  the  Earth  is  far  greater  than 
its  central  density. 

(As  a  note  to  the  reader,  it  may  be  added  here  that  when 
we  ascend  above  the  Earth's  .surface,  well  known  facts  con- 
tradict the  theory  of  gravitation  just  the  same  as  when  we 
descend  below  that  surface.  Mr.  R.  D.  Oldham,  F.R.S., 
states  that  "the  major  prominences  of  the  earth's  surface 
.  do  not  exert  the  attractive  force,  either  in  a  hor- 
izontal or  in  a  vertical  direction,  which  should  result  from 
their  mass,"*  and  Sir  Sidney  Burrard,  F.R.S.,  also  states 
that  "about  1860  the  observations  of  the  plumb-line  brought 
to  light  a  most  important  and  wholly  unexpected  fact,  namely, 
that  the  Himalaya  were  not  exercising  an  attraction  at  all 
commensurate  with  their  bulk.  ...  By  the  theory  of 
gravitation  the  plumb-line  ought  to  be  deflected  at  Kaliana 

*Address    Indian   Science    Congress    at   Lucknow,    Jan.    13,    1916. 


249]  REPLY  TO  DR.   C's   CRITICISM  439 

58  seconds  towards  the  hills.     It  is  not  deflected  at  all;   it 
hangs  vertically."* 

Mr.  Oldham  endeavors  to  explain  this  strange  fact  by  sup- 
posing that  the  substance  of  the  mountains  extends  down- 
wards into  a  deep  root  which  is  lighter  than  the  matter  there 
surrounding  it;  which,  of  course,  leaves  unexplained  the  hor- 
izontal defect  of  attraction.  And  Sir  Sidney  Burrard  thinks 
the  mountains  owe  their  elevation  to  expansion  of  the  sub- 
jacent material;  which  thus  accounts  for  the  isostasy,  but 
this  view  is  itself  in  direct  opposition  to  the  generally  ac- 
cepted theory  that  mountains  are  elevated  by  shrinkage  of 
the  Earth-crust  and  consequent  horizontal  pressure;  which 
would  obviously  cause  a  greater,  instead  of  a  less,  density 
of  the  mountain  roots.) 

248.  (22)     You  admit  the  contention  that  a  body  falling 
through  a  hole  from  the  Earth's  surface  through  its  center 
would  reach  the  opposite  surface,  and  so  vibrate  back  and 
forth  continually;   but  you  say  the  Earth's  attraction  under 
these  circumstances  would  be  "proportional  to  the  first  power 
(directly)   of  the  distance  from  the  center."     Your  meaning 
here  seems  not  very  clear.     But  anyway,  it  is  certain  that 
the  Earth's  attraction,  according  to  the  theory  of  gravitation, 
would  be  less  in  this  case  than  when  the  Earth  is  concen- 
trated at  its  center  because,  in  the  former  case,  the  effect 
of  the  shells  of  the  Earth  passed  through  on  the  way  in- 
wards would  at  least  be  partially  eliminated;   while,  in  the 
second  case,  there  would  be  no  such  elimination.     And  there- 
fore the  velocity  in  the  later  case,  upon  arriving  at  the  cen- 
ter ought  to  be  much  greater  than  in  the  former  case.     Yet 
you  hold  that,  by  means  of  a  slight  horizontal  motion,  the 
body  falling  with  this  greater  velocity  will  turn  around  the 
center  and  come  right  back  to  the  starting  point,  while  with 
the  lesser  velocity  it  would  go  4000  miles  farther  and  then 
turn  back!     This  may  be  easy  for  scientists,  but  to  an  ama- 
teur it  looks  more  like  the  work  of  a  fairy's  wand. 

249.  You  claim  that  the  statement  in  Art.  26  that  work 
is  based  on  weight  is  inaccurate;   and  thereafter  you  say: 

*Address  Geol.   Soc.,   London,   Feb.   2,    1916. 


440  APPENDIX    A  [249 

"in  lifting  a  body,  the  work  done  is  proportional  to  the  weight 
of  the  body  and  to  the  distance  through  which  it  is  lifted." 
You  find  much  fault  with  the  sling  illustration  of  the  rela- 
tion of  weight  and  work.  It  was  endeavored  to  be  shown 
by  it  that  a  pound  weight  swung  vertically  at  the  Earth's 
surface  in  a  sling  which  raised  the  weight  6  feet  from  the 
lowest  to  the  highest  point  of  the  swing  did  6  foot-pounds 
of  work;  which  you  say  is  correct;  and  also  that  the  same 
body  in  the  same  sling  when  similarly  swung  through  the 
same  angle  1600  miles  above  the  Earth's  surface  did  only 
3  foot-pounds  of  work,  because  the  pound  there  weighs  only 
half  as  much;  which  also  you  say  is  correct.  This  is  all  that 
was  contended  for,  and  seems  not  at  all  hard  to  understand. 
Yet  you  devote  two  pages  to  criticising  inconsequential  de- 
tails— the  using  of  "tension  on  the  string"  synonymously 
with  "work  done  by  the  string,"  "strain  on  the  string"  with 
"force  pulling  on  the  string,"  the  failure  to  consider  the  dif- 
ferent conditions  of  the  strain  at  the  top  and  bottom  of  the 
swing,  or  to  mention  the  velocity  of  the  body  in  the  sling, 
etc.,  etc.  These  minor  factors,  however,  it  is  entirely  un- 
necessary to  consider  as  they  were  either  supposed  to  be  pre- 
cisely the  same  in  the  upper  and  the  lower  parts  of  the  il- 
lustration, or  to  have  no  essential  bearing  on  the  case.  Ve- 
locity, e.  g.,  may  be  entirely  different  in  the  upper  and  the 
lower  vertical  slings.  The  essential  fact  is  that  6  foot-pounds 
of  work  are  done  by  the  half-swing  in  the  lower,  while  only 
3  foot-pounds  of  work  are  done  by  the  similar  half-swing  of 
the  same  body  in  the  upper. 

In  the  illustration  of  the  horizontal  sling,  you  object  to 
the  use  of  the  term  "foot-pound"  to  designate  the  work  of 
moving  a  pound  a  distance  of  one  foot;  yet  a  few  lines  below 
you  define  work  as  "the  product  of  the  force  acting  to  pro- 
duce the  motion  by  the  distance  the  body  moves  in  the  di- 
rection of  that  force."  Indeed  it  seems  that  the  definition  of 
work  which  you  criticise,  though  perhaps  defective,  is  fully 
as  good  as  your  own  because  you  leave  out  of  your  definition 
the  factor  of  mass.  Holding  the  Moon  in  its  orbit  is  incom- 
parably greater  work  than  holding  a  pound  mass  in  the  same 


249]  REPLY   TO   DR.    C's   CRITICISM  441 

orbit;  yet  they  both  are  subject  to  the  same  force,  and  each 
would  fall  the  same  distance  in  one  second  in  obedience  to 
that  force.  But,  in  any  case,  these  definitions  are  not  at  all 
an  essential  element  of  the  illustration.  In  the  lower  hori- 
zontal sling  the  pound  weight  is  drawn  from  the  tangent  to 
its  curved  path  one  foot  in  one  second,  and  in  the  upper  hor- 
izontal sling  the  half  pound  weight  is  also  drawn  from  the 
tangent  to  its  curved  path  one  foot  in  one  second;  which 
proves  that  the  work  done  in  the  latter  case  is  one-half  the 
work  done  in  the  former.  This  and  only  this  is  the  sole 
purpose  and  object  of  the  illustration. 

But  on  the  same  page  you  state  that  "if  the  word  work 
is  to  be  accepted  in  the  only  sense  in  which  it  is  ever  used 
in  mechanics,  no  work  at  all  is  done  against  the  centrifugal 
force.  .  .  .  Neither  the  'foot-pound'  of  the  first  case 
nor  the.  'half  foot-pound'  of  the  second  case  represents 
any  physical  quantity  whatsoever";  and  this  correct 
mechanical  definition  of  work,  as  stated  by  you,  is  given 
in  the  preceding  paragraph,.  Do  you  really  mean  that  it  re- 
quires no  work,  e.  g.,  to  hold  the  Moon  in  its  terrestrial  orbit 
against  the  centrifugal  force  urging  it  outwards  from  the 
Earth?  Don't  you  think  that,  if  you  would  try  to  hold  it  in 
its  path  by  means  of  a  cord,  in  the  absence  of  the  Earth's 
attraction,  you  would  find  it  some  work?  and  that  also  you 
would  find  it  a  great  deal  less  work  to  hold  a  pound  weight 
instead  of  the  Moon  in  the  same  orbit  with  the  same  velocity? 
You  know  that  Dr.  Lodge  says  that  the  strain  (or  "stress," 
or  '-'tension,"  or  "force,"  or  "work,"  or  "pull,"  or  any  other 
word  which  you  please  that  will  clearly  express  the  fact) 
exerted  by  the  centrifugal  tendency  upon  the  agency  holding 
the  Moon  in  its  orbit  would  tear  asunder  a  rod  of  steel  nearly 
400  miles  in  diameter,  if  substituted  instead  of  that  agency. 
And  far  more  powerful  means  would  be  necessary  to  coun- 
teract the  centrifugal  force  of  the  Earth  in  its  orbit  around 
the  Sun. 

The  agency  holding  the  Moon  in  its  orbit  draws  that  body 
from  a  tangent  to  its  path  0.00446  ft.  in  each  second,  and  the 
agency  holding  the  Earth  in  its  orbit  draws  it  0.01  ft.  in  one 


442  APPENDIX    A  [249 

second  from  the  tangent  to  its  path.  Does  the  agency  in  the 
latter  case  perform  more  work  to  correspond  with  the  greater 
result  it  obtains?  or,  as  you  claim,  does  neither  agency  per- 
form one  iota  of  work  in  obtaining  these  results?  Defini- 
tions cannot  alter  facts. 

You  admit  that  a  man  can  pick  up  a  cannon  ball  far  more 
easily  where  it  weighs  only  as  much  as  a  feather:  don't  you 
think  he  could  also  swing  it  round  in  a  sling  much  more  easily 
where  it  is  as  light  as  a  feather  than  where  it  weighs  100 
pounds?  Do  you  think  the  world  will  consider  it  reasonable 
for  you  to  maintain,  as  you  do,  that  a  ball  which  a  man  can 
pick  up  as  easily  as  a  feather  would  feel  as  heavy  as  a  hun- 
dred weight  when  whirled  around  in  a  sling? 

In  connection  with  Young's  calculation  regarding  the  at- 
traction of  the  Sun  for  the  Earth  in  tons  of  force,  you  take 
exception  to  the  expression  "the  Earth's  6X1021  tons  of 
weight,"  saying  it  ought  to  be  "tons  of  mass,"  and  that  "the 
'Earth's  weight'  would  mean  the  earth's  attraction  for  itself, 
which  is  meaningless."  However  it  does  not  seem  meaning- 
less to  some  but,  on  the  contrary,  very  clear  and  proper.  The 
Earth's  weight  is  the  total  of  what  another  body  like  the 
Earth  would  weigh  piecemeal  upon  the  Earth's  surface.  The 
Earth's  weight  at  the  Sun's  surface  would  be  nearly  28  times 
this,  and  at  a  distance  of  92,000,000  miles  from  the  Sun  would 
be  1/44,000  of  its  weight  on  the  Sun,  or  about  136  XlO15  tons. 
This  last  change  is  what  Prof.  Young  and  Dr.  Lodge  failed 
to  take  into  account,  their  result  being  arrived  at  by  vari- 
ation of  centrifugal  force  alone  and  ignoring  the  weight 
factor  at  the  Earth's  orbit. 

You  over  and  over  again  impute  inaccuracy  in  definition 
of  terms  and  a  lack  of  consistency  in  the  use  of  these  defini- 
tions which  you  say  vitiates  the  whole  work.  No  doubt  the 
work  is  by  no  means  perfect  in  these  respects;  but  the  sug- 
gestion may  be  permitted  that,  if  scientists  themselves  would 
only  discard  the  old  lumber  and  worse  than  useless  machinery 
of  an  untenable  theory,  which  they  use  as  a  standard  for 
judging'  the  work  of  others,  they  would  be  far  less  liable  to 
commit  even  more  serious  blunders. 


251]  REPLY  TO  DR.  C's  CRITICISM  443 

250.  More   than   one-fourth   of   your   examination   of   the 
work  is  devoted  to  this  single  chapter,  the  rest  receiving  but 
scanty  treatment.     Regarding  the  problem  of  three  bodies  in 
the  second  chapter,  you  say  you  are  no  astronomer  and  do 
not  consider  yourself  competent  to  do  more  than  pronounce 
it  not   convincing.     It  requires   no   astronomer,  however,   to 
calculate,  according  to  the  law  of  gravitation,  the  effects  of 
perturbing  forces  upon  constant  masses  due  to  their  distance- 
and   velocity-variations.     You   do   not   enter   at   all   into   the 
computations  which  lead  to  such  extraordianry  results  against 
the  theory  which  you  entertain,  and  you  offer  no  excuse  for 
the  total  failure  of  scientists  to  enter  into  such  computations, 
not  even  as  much  as  Mr.  G,  W.  Hill's  excuse  that  it  requires 
such  a  vast  amount  of  labor.     You  fall  back  again  solely  upon 
criticisms  of  definitions  of  terms  and  the  uses  to  which  they 
are  put. 

You  imply  that  the  attraction  of  the  Sun  upon  the  Moon 
should  not  be  measured  "in  'ft.  per  second'  (a  unit  of  veloc- 
ity)," Yet  the  power  of  attraction  can  very  easily  and  ac- 
curately be  measured  in  this  way.  The  Sun's  attraction, 
e.  g.,  draws  the  Earth  from  a  tangent  to  its  orbit  0.01  ft.  in 
one  second,  and,  other  things  equal,  the  attraction  of  any 
other  body  which  would  draw  the  Earth  twice,  or  ten  times 
as  much  from  the  tangent  to  its  orbit  in  the  same  time 
would  be  twice,  or  ten  times,  as  powerful  as  that  of  the  Sun. 
This  is  undeniable  even  to  an  astronomer.  Yet  this  is  the 
only  specific  criticism  you  offer  on  this  most  important 
chapter,. 

251.  In  the  third  chapter,  you  understand  Kepler's  sec- 
ond law  to  be  independent  of  any  hypothesis  explanatory  of 
gravitation;  yet  the  former  is  a  very  essential  factor  of  the 
latter.     When  a  planet  moves  outwards  beyond  its  average 
distance  from  the  Sun,  Kepler's  second  law  is  at  once  invoked 
to  account  for  a  theoretic  decrease  of  linear  velocity  nec- 
essary for  the  balancement  of  the  system  according  to  the 
theory  of  gravitation;    and  when  the  planet  moves  inwards 
from  its  average  distance,  the  same  law  is  again  invoked  to 
account  for  a  theoretic  increase  of  the  planet's  linear  velocity 


444  APPENDIX  A  [253 

for  the  same  purpose;  and  such  variations  appear  to  have  no 
other  physical  cause  than  their  grounding  in  Kepler's  sec- 
ond law.  Kepler  discovered  his  second  law  by  actual  obser- 
vation, and  it  does  not  appear  that  either  he  or  any  other  as- 
tronomer ever  claimed  that  this  observation  amounted  to  ex- 
act mathematical  demonstration  of  it.  It  is  clear,  therefore, 
that,  in  proving  the  law  to  be  without  mathematical  founda- 
tion even  in  the  demonstrations  of  Newton,  Herschel,  and 
Proctor,  a  vital  blow  is  dealt  the  theory  of  gravitation  of 
which  the  law  is  a  vital  part. 

252.  Of  the  first  equation  of  Art.  38,  you  say  the  process 
"consists  of  introducing  and  removing  the  value  x  =  y  and 
neglecting  the  fact  that  the  original  equation  still  remains  as 
a  solution   of  the   equation   obtained   by  the   multiplication," 
which  you  say  is  unfair.     This  statement  compels  the  reply 
that,  while  the  value  x  =  y  appears  to  have  been  introduced 
by  multiplying  both  members  of  the  equation  by  x  —  y,  that 
value  has  nowhere  been  removed;  and  also  that  the  fact  of 
the  first  equation  remaining  to  aid  in  the  solution  has  not 
been  neglected  because  it  is  comparison  with  the  first  equa- 
tion that  makes  the  final  result  absurd.     The  symbols  x  and 
y  represent  entirely  different  quantities  whose  sum  is  repre- 
sented to  be  s;  and  multiplying  both  members  of  this  equa- 
tion, x  +  y  =  s,  by  x  —  y  is  perfectly  legitimate  according 
to  the  present  rules  of  mathematics.     All  the  rest  consists 
of  the  ordinary  operations  in  the  simplification  of  equations, 
finally,  however  leading  ,to  the  result,  x  =  y,  which  flatly 
contradicts  the  relation  of  the  values  of  x  and  y  in  the  first 
equation.    Wherein  is  there  anything  unfair  in  this?  and  if 
"such   methods    do   not   inspire   confidence,"   upon   what   or 
whom,  ought  the  reflection  to  be  cast? 

253.  Regarding  Newton's  proof  of  the  law  of  equal  areas, 
you  say  "Newton  does  not  assume  the  centrifugal  force  to 
'impel  the  body  in  the  lines  Be,  Cd,  etc.' "    Here  once  more 
are  Newton's  exact  words:     "In  the  first  part  of  the  time  let 
the  body  by  its  innate  force  describe  the  right  line  AB.    In 
the  second  part  of  the  time  the  same  would,     ...     if  not 
hindered,  proceed  directly  to  c  along  the  line  Be,  equal  to  AB." 


254]  REPLY  TO  DR.  C's  CRITICISM  445 

(See  Newton's  own  diagram,  Art.  37).  Newton,  then,  does 
assume  the  body,  if  not  hindered,  to  be  impelled  in  the  lines 
Be,  Cd,  etc.,  by  the  motion  of  the  body  in  its  orbit,  call  it 
"innate  force,"  "centrifugal  force,"  or  any  other  other  name 
you  please;  and  ABc,  BCd,  are  assumed  to  be  right  lines. 
He  does  assume  afterwards  that  the  body  is  hindered  by 
having  its  path  bent  at  B,  but  the  part  Be  in  which  he  con- 
ditionally assumed  the  body  would  move,  but  does  not,  is 
nevertheless  the  peg  on  which  the  geometrical  theorem  of 
his  proof  and  therefore  his  whole  argument  wholly  depend, 
as  has  already  been  shown  in  Art.  39.  It  is  regrettable  that 
you  failed  to  notice  this;  but  it  certainly  was  made  suffi- 
ciently plain. 

The  objection  to  Newton's  demonstration  of  the  law  of 
equal  areas  in  equal  times,  which  you  say  you  do  not  clearly 
understand,  is  that  Newton  assumes  the  body  to  move  in  any 
unit  of  time  in  the  path  produced  of  the  preceding  unit  of 
time.  Thus,  in  the  first  unit  of  time,  the  body  describes  the 
line  AB,  and,  if  not  hindered,  would,  in  the  second  unit  of 
time,  describe  Be,  which  is  the  path  produced,  or  continua- 
tion of  the  path,  in  the  first  unit  of  time.  In  the  second  unit 
of  time  the  body  describes  BC  and,  if  not  hindered,  would  in 
the  third  unit  of  time  describe  Cd,  which  is  the  path  of  the 
second  unit  of  time  produced  or  extended.  And  so  on.  But 
this,  as  has  already  been  explained  in  the  body  of  the  work, 
is  an  impossibility  in  the  case  of  circular  or  elliptic  motion. 

The  paths  BC,  CD,  etc.,  are  diagonals  of  parallelograms 
the  sides  of  which  are  formed  by  the  momentary  forces  act- 
ing upon  the  body,  and  Be,  Cd,  etc.,  which  really  are  not 
and  could  not  be  described  at  all,  but  are  absolutely  necessary 
for  Newton's  argument,  are  continuations  of  these  diagonals, 
respectively.  Whether  the  parallelograms  mentioned  are 
formed  by  forces  or  by  motions  (as  you  claim)  is  immaterial. 
You  are,  however,  certainly  mistaken  in  supposing  only  one 
force  to  act  on  the  body.  In  all  circular  motion  there  are  a 
tangential,  or  "inate,"  or  centrifugal,  force,  and  a  central  or 
centripetal  force,  or  some  other  agency  answering  thereto. 

254.     You  are  also  mistaken,  where  you  criticise  Art.  40, 


446  APPENDIX  A  [256 

in  holding  that  "the  law  of  equal  areas  applies  to  a  single 
planet  moving  in  its  own  orbit.  It  does  not  say  or  imply  that 
if  the  same  planet  moved  in  a  different  orbit  the  areas  swept 
out  in  equal  intervals  of  time  in  the  second  orbit  .  .  would 
be  equal  to  the  areas  swept  out  in  intervals  of  the  same  length 
in  the  first  orbit."  This  is  practically  equivalent  to  saying 
that  the  law  of  equal  areas  does  not  apply  to  planetary  mo- 
tion at  all;  for,  owing  to  various  causes,  no  two  orbital  paths 
of  the  same  planet  are  ever  alike.  Therefore  the  argument 
of  Art.  40  remains  as  before. 

255.  In  your  comments  on  the  chapter  regarding  tides, 
why  do  you  charge  the  author  with  having  "ignored  the  real 
reasons  which  cause  scientists  to  regard  the  moon  as  the 
chief  tide  producing  agent,"  when  the  first,  and  by  far  the 
most  important  of  these  reasons — that  the  tides  follow  the 
Moon's  motions — has  been  discussed  and  explained  at  great 
length  in  Arts.  48  and  152  of  the  work,  and  when  you  say  you 
have  read  that  work  carefully  twice?     You  say  "I  should  de- 
scribe this  as  the  method  of  an  attorney  attempting  to  make 
a  case  rather  than  the  method  of  a  scientific  investigator." 
If  the  writer  did  not  believe  that  you  are  perfectly  sincere, 
so  also  should  he. 

The  remaining  reason  which  you  mention,  that  "tides  are 
highest  when  the  moon  is  nearest  the  earth,"  is  not  a  whit 
of  more  consequence  than  that  the  tides  are  highest  when 
the  Sun  is  nearest  the  Earth,  which  is  equally  true.  You  say 
you  are  not  very  well  acquainted  with  tidal  data,  but  even 
those  which  are  called  to  your  attention  you  have  passed  over 
without  a  single  comment — the  solar  aerial  tides,  the  solar 
inland  sea  and  lake  tides,  etc.,  which  are  some  of  the  most 
important  theoretic  phenomena  in  physical  science,.  You  con- 
tent yourself  with  again  commenting  severely  on  the  "loose- 
ness" of  the  logic  and  observing  that  the  "confusion  between 
forces,  velocities,  accelerations,  and  distances  vitiates  his 
whole  argument;"  and  this  said  of  what  appears  to  be  per- 
fectly clear  and  understandable  to  any  person  of  ordinary  in- 
telligence. 

256.  In  Art.  51  of  Chap.  V,  Herschel's  estimate  of  the  tern- 


257]  REPLY  TO  DR.   C's  CRITICISM  447 

perature  difference  upon  the  Earth  which  ought  to  correspond 
with  the  difference  of  the  Sun's  distance,  you  think  of  little 
value  because  too  many  factors  are  involved.  But  the  differ- 
ence, 23°  F.,  seems  far  too  great  to  be  accounted  for  in  that 
off-hand  way. 

If  Mars  is  as  warm  as  the  Earth,  or  warmer,  you  think  it 
may  be  owing  to  a  greater  proportion  of  carbon  dioxide  in  its 
atmosphere.  This,  however,  in  connection  with  the  observed 
facts,  is  not  at  all  so  reasonable  an  assumption  as  Dr,  Lowell's. 

You  say  that,  in  any  case,  none  of  the  objections  mentioned 
in  this  chapter,  even  if  true,  affects  in  the  least  the  theory 
of  gravitation.  This  is,  perhaps,  true  in  a  limited  sense.  But 
if  it  can  be  shown  that  heat  and  light  are  not  radiated  out 
equally  in  all  directions  in  interplanetary  space,  it  inferen- 
tially  limits  the  force  of  gravity  in  the  same  manner.  Of 
course  you  deny  that  force  is  so  radiated  even  now.  But  you 
admit  that  "bodies  at  a  distance  from  one  another  do  influ- 
ence one  another,"  and  you  also  admit  that  energy,  which  has 
been  shown  to  be  practically  the  same  thing  as  force,  is  con- 
tinually expended  by  a  body  doing  attractive  work;  and  this 
energy  has  either  to  be  radiated  outwards  from  the  body  in 
all  directions,  without  requiring  time  for  its  transmission,  or 
is  continually  resident  in  the  intervening  medium,  which  last 
is  the  theory  advanced  in  the  work.  There  is  no  other  al- 
ternative. 

257.  You  speak  of  the  "unjustified  and  uncalled  for  fling" 
at  the  close  of  Art.  53;  but  the  statement  is  still  held  to  be 
fully  warranted  by  the  facts.  Even  you  yourself  have  passed 
over  the  undeniable  facts  of  preponderance  of  the  solar  fac- 
tor in  aerial  and  inland  sea  and  lake  tides  without  a  single 
comment.  You  have  also  merely  slurred  over  the  compara- 
tively immense  perturbing  forces  shown  to  arise  according  to 
the  law  of  gravitation  in  the  problem  of  three  bodies,.  These 
are  vital  objections  to  the  theory  of  gravitation  and  should 
be  met  and  answered  if  possible,  but  you  have  passed  them 
practically  in  silence.  And  in  the  second  part  of  the  work, 
you  appear  liable  to  the  graver  fault  of  calling  the  premises 
mere  "assumptions"  instead  of  which  you  say  "proofs" 


448  APPENDIX  A  [258 

should  have  been  given,  and  when  the  most  important  phe- 
nomena of  Nature  were  furnished  as  proofs  of  the  correctness 
of  the  premises — the  co-planer  orbital  and  rotational  motions 
of  the  planets,  the  origin  and  peculiar  phenomena  of  comets 
and  meteorites,  the  Saturnian  Ring,  the  connection  of  the 
planet  Jupiter  with  the  sunspots,  the  zodiacal  light  (regarding 
which  it  was  proved  that  present  day  astronomers  hold  an 
entirely  erroneous  view),  the  solar  corona,  the  velocity  and 
direction  of  the  currents  of  the  upper  aerial  regions,  the  tides, 
terrestrial  electricity  and  magnetism,  geological  climatic 
changes,  variation  of  terrestrial  latitudes,  temporary  and  var- 
iable stars,  the  cosmic  chain  of  causation  connecting  the  mac- 
rocosin  with  the  microcosm,  etc. — you  have  entirely  ignored 
nearly  all  of  them  or  offered  only  disparaging  general  re- 
marks. This  is  not  an  "unjustified  fling"^  it  is  a  fact.  Yet 
your  perfect  sincerity  in  it  all  and  your  excellent,  even  kindly, 
intentions  are  freely  admitted.  But  you,  and  other  scientific 
men  as  well,  are  unconsciously  biased  in  favor  of  a  diametri- 
cally different  theory  which,  for  centuries  past,  has  enjoyed 
practically  universal  acceptance,  and  equally  so  down  to  the 
present  time.  Even  the  writer,  or  any  one,  who  had  the 
strongest  possible  conviction  of  the  truth  of  a  most  important 
view,  if  a  fact  should  accidentally  turn  up  which  appeared 
to  contradict  that  view,  could  hardly  fail,  unless  special  pre- 
cautions were  taken  to  guard  against  it,  to  regard  the  fact 
with  suspicion  as  being  in  some  way  grounded  in  error  and 
incline  to  ignore  it,  or  pigeon-hole  it  for  possible  future  ref- 
erence or  corroboration .  And  this  is  undoubtedly  done  today 
to  an  undreamed-of  extent  in  the  investigations  of  physical 
astronomy,  as  well  as  in  other  departments  of  science. 

258.  The  authority  for  the  statement  that  sunspots  are 
formed  by  the  downrush  of  cooled,  solid  particles,  is  J.  Nor- 
man Lockyer  (Nature,  33,  470  and  34,  255),  as  stated  in  Art. 
136  of  the  work. 

You  say  you  "disagree  altogether"  with  Wm.  B.  Taylor's 
statement  in  Art.  67  that  Newton  himself  in  later  years  re- 
turned to  his  old  idea  of  attractive  action  at  a  distance,  which 
he  once  characterized  as  "so  great  an  absurdity;"  and  you 


259]  REPLY  TO  DR.  C's  CRITICISM  449 

think  the  basis  for  the  statement  "lies  not  in  his  own  writ- 
ings but  in  the  preface  to  the  second  edition  of  his  Principia, 
which  was  written  by  Roger  Cotes."  You  are  mistaken,  how- 
ever. The  statement  is  grounded  on  his  own  Optics,  Book 
III,  Query  28.  It  is  quite  probable  that  you  are  also  mis- 
taken about  the  general  abandonment  of  the  idea  of  action 
at  a  distance  today.  Aside  from  the  conception  that  attrac- 
tive energy  lies  wholly  in  the  connective  medium,  no  other 
view  appears  to  meet  with  any  less  difficulty  than  actio  in 
distans. 

259.  This  concludes  your  criticism  of  the  first  part  of 
the  work,  and,  as  already  intimated,  it  is  hardly  worth  while 
to  follow  your  remarks  on  the  second  part  as  you  have  en- 
tirely misconceived  its  plan. 

You  enumerate  the  elements  which  go  to  form  the  basis 
of  the  new  theory  according  to  Art.  69  as  (1)  atoms,  (2) 
atomic  bonds,  (3)  molecular  bonds,  (4)  materiality  of  these 
bonds,  (5)  extension  of  the  bonds  between  all  bodies.  To 
the  first  you  appear  to  offer  no  objection.  To  the  second  you 
object  that  these  bonds  are  always  regarded  as  figurative, 
instead  of  literal.  The  third  you  regard  as  a  not  improbable 
assumption,  but  questionable  whether  similar  to  atomic 
bonds.  The  fourth,  you  say,  is  without  a  particle  of  justifi- 
cation because  the  attraction  between  atoms  "are  certainly 
known  to  be  electrical."  Electricity  is  certainly  a  very  handy 
source  of  explanation  for  a  whole  lot  of  phenomena;  but  one 
objection  to  it  is  that  we  know  next  to  absolutely  nothing  of 
the  ultimate  nature  of  electricity.  And  the  fifth  you  hold  to 
be  a  more  violent  assumption  than  the  fourth.  It  may  be 
stated,  however,  that  no  such  assumption  has  been  made. 
What  has  been  assumed  is  that  such  bonds  extend  between  all 
naturally  and  regularly  derived  bodies  (Art.  69),  and  by  far 
the  greater  number  of  bodies  are  irregularly  derived  in  the 
natural  process  of  evolution. 

In  Art.  72  are  stated  the  basic  elements  of  the  connective 
theory  which  are  new,  namely  that  "every  regular  heavenly 
body  of  whatever  size"  (including  even  atoms  and  electrons) 
"is  connected  with  its  neighboring  heavenly  bodies  by  real, 


450  APPENDIX  A  [260 

ethereal  bonds"  and  that  "all  bodies  have  ethereal  atmos- 
pheres in  connection  with  these  ethereal  bonds."  It  is  fur- 
ther stated  that  these  basic  elements  "are  not  asserted  here 
as  facts,  but  only  as  premises  or  assumptions  for  temporary 
guidance,  to  be  ultimately  accepted  or  rejected  according  to 
their  agreement  or  disagreement  with  the  phenomena  of  cos- 
mical  evolution,  as  these  phenomena  are  investigated  in  con- 
nection with  them."  It  is  very  regrettable  indeed  that  you 
have,  apparently,  wholly  overlooked  this  last  statement.  For 
you  say  "The  important  thing  is  that  the  premises  of  the 
author  .  .  .  are  not  the  self-evident  matter  which  he 
assumes  them  to  be."  You  cannot  but  see  clearly  now  that 
no  such  assumption  is  made. 

260.  You  keep  continually  pounding  away  at  my  premises 
and  "assumptions"  without  waiting  a  moment  for  their  cor- 
roboration  and  harmony  with  the  facts  of  Nature. 

You  say  "Here  the  bonds  are  spoken  of  as  ethereal:  pre- 
viously they  were  called  material.  They  cannot  be  both. 
This  is  another  instance  of  a  confusion  of  terms  accompanied 
with  a  confusion  of  ideas.  It  continues  through  the  book 
If  there  were  no  other  weakness  in  the  hypoth- 
esis, this  alone  would,  in  my  opinion,  be  enough  to  condemn 
it."  The  writer  does  not  know  what  intellectual  food  it  is 
that  can  evolve  such  conclusions,  but  he  is  pretty  certain 
that  he,  at  least,  has  never  tasted  it.  Do  you  really  mean 
to  say  that  the  ether  is  not  material?  Who  besides  your- 
self regards  it  as  non-material?  J.  Clerk  Maxwell  defines 
the  ether  as  "a  material  substance  of  a  more  subtile  kind 
than  visible  bodies",*  and  assigns  to  it  inertia  and  a  small 
density.  Lord  Kelvin  assigns  it  a  small  mas^t 
as  does  R.  A.  Fessenden.$  Mendeleef  gives  the  ether 
a  place  in  a  new  table  of  elements.  §  Prof.  W.  M.  Hicks 
gives  it  the  density  of  ordinary  matter §§  and  Sir  J.  J.  Thom- 

*Ency.  Brit.,  Art.  Ether. 

tNature,   79,  459. 

JPhys.  Rev.,  X,  pp.  4,  29,  30,  32. 

§Appendix  III,  to  the  Principles,  Eng.  Ed.,   1905. 

§§Pres.  Add.,  B.  A.  A.  S.,   1895. 


260]  REPLY  TO  DR.  C's  CRITICISM  •     451 

son*  and  Sir  Oliver  Lodge f  give  it  a  density  of  millions  of 
times  that  of  platinum!  You  will  surely  see  now  that  the 
assignment  of  materiality  to  the  ether  and  to  ethereal  bonds 
does  NOT  vitiate  the  whole  argument  of  the  new  theory,  but 
rather  that  your  assumption  if  non-materiality  to  that  sub- 
stance sadly  affects  your  own. 

It  seems  almost  useless  to  follow  you  further.  Whenever  the 
idea  of  material  connexions  is  used,  it  is  at  once  condemned 
in  advance.  You  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  "even  if  the  word 
material  is  accepted  and  the  assumption  itself  admitted  to  be 
sound,  yet  nothing  has  really  been  added  to  our  knowledge 
until  some  way  is  suggested  of  dealing  with  these  connexions 
experimentally."  But  why  don't  you  wait  until  facts  corrob- 
orative of  the  premises  are  presented?  and,  when  they  are 
presented,  why  do  you  pass  them  by  in  silence,  or  merely 
profess  your  unacquaintance  with  them?  One  experimental 
corroboration  offered  is  that,  when  an  element  is  dissociated 
out  of  a  chemical  compound,  the  amount  of  electricity  it 
yields  is  directly  proportional  to  its  valency  (Art.  69).  De- 
tailed experiments  have  not  been  given  as  the  space  could 
not  be  afforded  and  as  it  was  thought  the  fact  would  be  gen- 
erally known  and  admitted  The  subject  of  electricity  is  a 
grand  one  and  of  vast  magnitude;  and  the  writer  once 
dreamed  that  he  might  publish  a  volume  as  large  as  this  con- 
taining some  new  ideas  on  that  subject  alone;  but  time  is 
fleeting  and  life  is  short.  However  the  evidence  of  this  sin- 
gle experiment  clearly  shows  a  connection  between  the  atomic 
bonds,  or  lines  of  chemical  affinity,  and  the  electric  fluid. 
Regarding  the  planetary  bonds  considerable  important  evi- 
dence has  been  given  to  show  that  they  are  directly  connected 
with  the  rays  of  the  solar  corona,  the  movements  of  which 
appear  to  correspond  to  those  of  the  planets  (Arts.  142-3) ; 
and  it  is  stated  (Art.  143)  that,  not  being  an  astronomer  him- 
self, the  writer  begged  of  a  friend  who  is  one  of  the  principal 
observers  of  eclipses,  to  determine  if  one  of  the  main  stream- 
ers of  the  corona  did  not  always  point  in  the  direction  of 
the  planet  Jupiter.  Subsequent  inquiry  elicited  nothing  re- 

*Nature,    81,    253. 

tPres.  Add.,  B.  A.  A.  S.,  1913. 


452  APPENDIX  A  [261 

garding  this  matter;  but  it  has  been  shown  (Art.  143)  that, 
nine  years  later,  another  observer  had  confirmed  this  fact. 
But  these  and  many  other  equally 'important  confirmations 
of  the  truth  of  the  premises  you  have  passed  without  the 
slightest  notice 

In  response  to  your  request  regarding  "the  passages  from 
Newton  and  Faraday  in  which  they  speak  of  gravitation  as 
acting  through  a  material  agency,"  it  may  be  stated  that  ref- 
erence to  the  passages  by  these  men  themselves  is  not  at 
hand  and  that  they  were  given  only  on  the  authority  of  Sir 
William  Thomson  in  an  article  on  Capillary  Attraction* 

It  may  be  added  that  Boscovich  postulated  an  "electric 
solid  ether; "t  that  Des  Cartes,  imitating  Archimedes,  said 
"Give  me  matter  and  I  will  give  you  the  universe;  "$  and 
that  Hertz  supposed  rigid  connections  between  bodies  acting 
upon  one  another  at  a  distance;  which  supposition  is  closely 
related  to  the  similar  conception  of  Osborne  Reynolds  and 
"Waterdale."§ 

261.  The  assumption  that  the  surface  of  a  gaseous  spher- 
oid is  more  favorable  for  contraction  and  development, 
through  some  process  akin  to  cooling,  than  the  central  re- 
gions, you  deny  on  the  ground  that  such  a  gaseous  spheroid 
would  possess  no  surface  at  all,  even  though  we  actually  see 
many  such  bodies  in  the  heavens  and  with  well  defined  sur- 
faces too.  And  you  hold  also  that,  owing  to  this  alleged 
want  of  surface,  a  rigid  surface  crust  from  such  surface  cool- 
ing and  development  is  a  "mechanical  impossibility."  Pages 
of  such  remarks  and  objections  call  for  no  further  reply. 

You  say  "So  far  as  I  can  see  the  thing  might  have  hap- 
pened somewhat  as  outlined  by  the  author,  but  there  is  no 
evidence  that  it  did;"  and  then  you  practically  skip  over 
about  200  pages  of  just  such  evidence! 

You  state  "Unfortunately  he  has  thought  it  necessary  to 
attempt  to  deny  certain  mechanical  relations  among  which 

*Nature,    34,    271. 

tW.  W.  R.  Ball,  Researches  and  Essays,  pp.  357-378. 

JProf.  d'Arcy,  Add.,  B.  A.  A.  S.,  1911. 

§Nature,  51,  283. 


263]  REPLY  TO  DR.  C's  CRITICISM  453 

are  the  quantitive  facts  of  the  gravitational  theory;"  but, 
if  you  are  correctly  Understood  here,  no  such  thing  has  been 
attempted  at  all.  What  has  been  attempted  was  to  show 
that  the  quantitive  facts  of  gravitation,  which  are  of  course 
indisputable,  are  absolutely  incompatible  with  the  present  the- 
ory of  gravitation,  and  also  that  these  facts  are  fully  ac- 
countable on  the  basis  of  a  different  theory. 

262.  You  dispute  the  statement  in  Art.  96  that  the  electric 
current  is  confined  to  the  surface  of  the  conductor,  saying 
"most  certainly  the  current  does  not  flow  in  the  region  sur- 
rounding the  wire,  but  in  the  wire  itself,"  or  "throughout  the 
cross-section  of  the  conductor."  A  few  quotations  regarding 
this  subject  may  interest  you. 

"It  is  still  to  many  a  hard  saying  that  in  an 
electric  circuit  the  conducting  wire,  though  it  guides, 
does  not  carry  the  energy;  that  the  energy-paths  lie  out- 
side in  the  surrounding  medium,  not  inside  within  the 
so-called  conductor.  That  the  guttapercha  sheath  and  not 
the  copper  wire  within  it,  is  the  actual  medium  which  con- 
veys the  impulse  from  one  side  of  the  Atlantic  to  the  other 
in  cable  telegraphy  is  still  incredible  to  those  brought  up  in 
the  older  school  of  thought.  But  it  is  none  the  less  a  nec- 
essary consequence  of  the  views  which  the  inescapable  logic 
of  facts  drove  Maxwell  and  his  followers  to  adopt."* 

"It  is  probable  .  .  that  in  the  case  of  a  steady  current  .  . 
the  disturbance  in  the  wire  itself  is  not,  as  has  hitherto  been 
assumed,  the  cause  of  the  phenomena  in  the  neighborhood; 
but  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  disturbances  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  the  wire  are  the  cause  of  the  phenomena  inside 
of  it" .  t 

"The  metal  instantly  assumes  or  loses  .the  appear- 
ance of  red  heat  the  moment  the  current  is  turned  on  or  off, 
showing  that,  if  the  appearance  is  really  due  to  a  rise  of  tem- 
perature, it  does  not  penetrate  much  below  the  surface" .  $ 

It  is  also  well  known  that  the  current  is  always  most 
dense  along  the  sharp  edge  of  a  conductor. 

263.  You  object  to  the  connective  theory  because  "it  re- 

*Prof.  S.  P.  Thompson,  El.  lies.  Elec.  and  Mag.,  Preface,  p.  IX. 
fHertz,  Electric  Waves,  p.  275. 

JProf.  "Wm.  Crookes,  Lecture  Royal  Society,  London,  July  11,  1891; 
Lord  Kelvin  Address  Royal  Society,  Nov.  30,  1893. 


454  APPENDIX   A  [264 

quires  a  different  explanation  for  gravitational  attraction  be- 
tween bodies  upon  the  surface  of  the  earth  and  those  lying 
outside  the  connective  atmosphere  of  the  earth."  Yet  it  has 
been  shown  that  this  theory  of  attraction  accounts  very  well 
for  all  of  the  observed  facts.  In  the  Earth's  connective  at- 
mosphere, for  obvious  reasons,  attraction  varies  inversely  as 
the  square  of  the  distance.  In  the  case' of  the  primary  bond 
of  each  planet,  the  attractive  function  is  practically  con- 
stant; while  the  attractive  strength  of  the  primary  bonds  of 
the  planets  collectively  have  been  determined  at  their  several 
places  of  origin  in  the  solar  connective  atmosphere,  and  there- 
fore varies  among  themselves  according  to  the  inverse  dis- 
tance squares  also. 

You  seem  sufficiently  impressed  with  the  new  theory  to 
suggest  that  such  experiments  as  Airy's  in  the  Harton  mine 
would  afford  a  test  of  it  and  that  many  more  such  experi- 
ments should  be  made.  After  diligent  search  for  other  simi- 
lar experiments,  even  publishing  an  inquiry  to  that  effect  in 
one  of  the  leading  scientific  journals,  no  trace  was  found  of 
any.  The  probable  reason  is  that,  when  people  are  firmly 
convinced  that  the  present  theory  is  "impregnable"  and 
wholly  beyond  contravention,  they  cannot  see  any  use  of 
making  investigations  which  lead  to  results  which  tend  to 
stultify  that  theory  and  therefore  can  only  be  regarded  as 
inept  and  abortive  themselves,  as  if  necessarily  vitiated  by 
some  hidden  error. 

264.  You  say  that  "if  this  connection  between  the  posi- 
tion of  Jupiter  and  sunspots  can  be  established  it  would  be  a 
scientific  achievement  of  the  very  first  rank  and  be  worth  a 
man's  lifetime  of  work.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  this  con- 
nection, if  it  existed,  would  be  a  fact  independent  of  any 
hypothesis".  The  last  sentence  betrays  how  little  you  have 
understood  the  new  theory.  One  of  the  two  main  principles 
of  that  theory  is  that  the  planets  are  connected  together  and 
with  their  parent  Sun  by  means  of  material  bonds,  in  which 
alone  heat,  light,  and  electric  disturbances  are  transmitted 
between  them,  and  in  which  the  action  of  interplanetary  grav- 
itation is  located.  Now  at  immense  labor  the  quantitative 


264]  REPLY  TO  DR.  C's  CRITICISM  455 

variations  of  this  assumed  interplanetary  bond-substance  up- 
on the  Earth  has  been  computed  for  each  month  of  a  period 
of  nearly  a  century;  and  it  was  found  from  this  investigation 
that  the  periods  of  variation  of  the  theoretic  bond-substance 
upon  the  Earth  almost  exactly  corresponded  with  the  sun- 
spot  periods  and  with  the  movements  and  positions  of  the 
planet,  Jupiter,  for  all  that  time.  And  yet  you  say  this 
correspondence  is  independent  of  the  hypothesis!  It  has 
been  clearly  shown  that  the  sun-spot  periods  depend  almost 
entirely  on  the  positions  with  respect  to  the  Sun  of  two  great 
interplanetary  bonds,  namely,  that  between  Jupiter  and  the 
Sun  and  that  between  the  Sun  and  its  own  primary  system, 
which  last  is  popularly  called  "the  zodiacal  light".  It  has 
been  further  shown  and  proven  by  actual  observation  that  the 
current  conception  regarding  the  latter  is  erroneous  and  that 
it  really  extends  from  the  Sun  in  one  direction,  namely  that 
in  which  the  Earth  lies  from  that  body  about  the  first  of 
each  calendar  year. 

Now  the  new  theory  assumes  that,  when  Jupiter  also  lies 
upon  that  side  of  the  Sun,  so  that  the  two  principal  inter- 
planetary bonds  coincide  on  that  side  of  the  Sun,  or,  in  other 
words,  when  Jupiter  is  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  Sun  from 
the  Earth  (or  in  what  is  called  in  the  new  theory  opposition 
with  the  Earth)  about  the  middle  of  the  year,  then  (for  obvi- 
ous reasons  which  need  not  be  repeated  here)  we  should  have 
maximum  sun-spots.  And,  when  we  consult  the  sun-spot  rec- 
ords, we  find  that  about  as  far  back  as  accurate  records  ex- 
tend, the  years  of  sunspot  maxima  are  in  fact  the  years  in 
which  Jupiter  is  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  Sun  from  the 
Earth  about  the  middle  of  the  year.  The  years  of  sun-spot 
maximum  and  the  corresponding  dates  of  Jupiter's  opposition 
with  the  Earth  for  the  past  85  years  are  as  follows:  1907, 
July  15;  1895,  July  29;  1883,  July  6;  1871,  July  3;  1860,  July 
27;  1848,  July  26;  1837,  Aug.  19.  It  cannot  be  maintained  for 
a  moment  that  these  coincidences  could  have  happened  out 
of  mere  chance.  Yet  this  wonderful  corroboration  of  the  new 
theory  by  the  actual  facts;  this  undeniable  connection  of  sun- 
spot  phenomena  with  the  movements  of  Jupiter,  and  the  ev- 


456  APPENDIX  A  [265 

ident  interdependence  and  intimate  causal  relationship  of 
sun-spot  phenomena  with  the  theoretic  interplanetary  bonds 
— you  pass  them  all  by  with  merely  superficial  remarks  or 
off-hand  denial.  And  this  is  only  a  single  instance  out  of 
dozens  of  similar  corroborations  of  the  connective  theory 
similarly  treated.  There  appears  to  be  no  remedy  but  time; 
but  time  will  tell! 

265.  In  reply  to  your  intimation  that  the  constancy  assum- 
ed for  the  density  of  the  Earth's  connective  atmosphere  seems 
contradicted  by  the  assumption  of  additions  and  subtractions 
of  connective  substance  therein  due  to  quantitative  variations 
of  interplanetary  connective  bonds,  it  may  be  repeated  that 
the  material  in  the  case  of  the  latter  variations  would  likely 
take  on  a  form  amenable  to  gravity  before  its  existence  in 
such  quantity  as  to  noticeably  affect  gravity  itself. 

To  your  further  query — why  "the  movements  of  the  free 
connective  substance  in  our  atmosphere  are  .  .  .  literally 
as  quick  as  lightning" — the  answer  is  because  that  free  con- 
nective substance  is  supposed  to  be  that  which  constitutes 
lightning,  a  form  of  electric  fluid  itself. 

"Why  should  not  that  part  of  the  connective  atmosphere 
which  has  been  called  the  free  or  reserve  portion  revolve 
with  the  earth?"  Because  it  is  a  part  of  the  Earth's  con- 
nective atmosphere  which  is  held  nearly  stationary  by  the 
relatively  fixed  planetary  connexions  extending  outwards 
from  the  Earth.  There  would  be,  however,  considerable  move- 
ments of  it. 

"Is  such  an  assumption  of  an  easy  interchange  between 
connective  matter  and  ordinary  matter  in  good  agreement 
with  the  previous  assumption  that  the  two  kinds  reached 
their  present  state  of  development  through  long  processes  of 
evolution?"  Yes,  just  as  in  chemical  combination  an  ele- 
ment set  free  from  a  compound  is  ready  to  unite  under  favor- 
able circumstances  with  some  other  element  to  form  a  new 
compound.  Your  criticism  applies  no  more  to  connective  sub- 
stance than  it  would  to  radium. 

"Is   it  true  that  the   connective  atmospheres   of  smaller 


266]  REPLY  TO  DR.  C's  CRITICISM  457 

bodies  are  observed  .  .  ."?  Yes,  through  the  effects  upon 
them  of  light,  electricity,  etc. 

It  is  rather  surprising  that  you  claim  to  have  no  knowledge 
of  aerial  tides,  which  one  would  think  should  be  familiar  to 
every  student  of  physics. 

"Is  not  the  statement  in  the  last  part  of  the  first  paragraph 
of  this  section  (Art.  153),  'the  tide-raising  effect  of  the  other 
body  would  be  shut  out'  .  .  .  equivalent  to  assuming  that 
the  land  surface  surrounding  the  body  of  water  would  cut  off 
the  gravitational  attraction  of  the  sun  or  moon  as  the  case 
might  be  from  the  water?"  No;  it  is  not  gravitational  attrac- 
tion that  is  shut  out  but  the  tide-raising  effect  which,  accord- 
ing to  the  accepted  theory,  does  not  operate  on  a  land-locked 
body  of  water  that  is  90°  distant  from  the  tide-producer. 

Your  remarks  in  the  last  paragraph  of  p.  66  has  already 
been  replied  to  (Art.  257).  Try  a  new  theory  yourself,  and 
probably  you  will  learn  something,  especially  if  your  theory 
has  real  merit.  If  not,  consult  the  teaching  of  history. 

266.  Your  criticism  of  the  comments  in  the  work  regard- 
ing "immaterial  substance"  is  too  refined  for  the  writer's 
senses.  He  is  no  metaphysician.  In  physics,  matter  and  sub- 
stance are  to  him  synonymous.  Both  are  bodies,  and  he  knows 
of  none  such  that  are  immaterial:  he  cannot  even  conceive 
of  one.  There  are  various  forms  of  isubstance — solids,  col- 
loids, liquids,  vapors,  electricity,  ether,  and  possibly  others 
still  more  refined;  but  they  are  all  and  equally  forms  of 
matter.  The  odor,  the  aura,  the  most  tenuous  medium,  the 
most  ethereal  form  of  substance,  whether  amenable  to  grav- 
ity, or  many  degrees  removed  from  subjection  to  it — each  is 
matter,  or  it  is  nothing.  However  it  may  be  in  theology  or  in 
mathematics,  there  are  no  ghosts  in  cosmical  physics,  except 
as  products  of  the  imagination  or  of  disordered  nerves.  Lord 
Kelvin  ascribed  to  the  ether  a  density  of  one  sixty-billionth 
of  a  grain  per  cubic  meter,  but  this  makes  it  material  equally 
with  Sir  Oliver  Lodge's  assignment  to  it  of  a  density  millions 
of  times  that  of  lead.  So  that,  when  you  say  that  the  writer 
also,  in  assuming  a  connective  atmosphere  and  material  inter- 
planetary bonds,  has  "formed  a  conception  of  an  immaterial 


458  APPENDIX  A  [269 

substance",  you  have  again  misconceived  his  intention  and 
his  work. 

"What  is  meant  by  the  'electric»fluid'?"  It  is  conceived  to 
be  a  form  of  the  free  or  reserve  connective  substance,  a  ten- 
uous form  of  matter  not  amenable  to  gravity.  Then  you  "pass 
over  without  comment"  one  of  the  most  valuable  chapters  of 
the  work,  on  terrestrial  magnetism,  containing  the  most  splen- 
did corroborations  of  the  new  theory  because,  according  to 
your  notions,  the  connective  matter  of  the  new  theory  had 
been  dematerialized  when  it  was  called  electricity  (p71>,  al- 
though (p.  69)  you  charge  it  with  being  a  "conception  of  an 
immaterial  substance"! 

267.  The  authorities  for  ascending  atmospheric  electric 
currents  at  the  Equator  are  Prof.  S.  P.  Thompson*  and  Prof.B. 
Stewart,  t     M.  S.  Lemstrom  in  a  work  on  auroras,  reviewed 
by  A.   M.   Clerke,J   and   probably  Dr.   Bauer  §    appear   to   be 
other  authorities. 

268.  "The  author  appears  to  assume  that  a  magnet  placed 
near  an  electric  current  would  tend  to  set  itself  parallel  to 
the  direction  of  the  current".     It  does  so  to  the  direction  of 
an  atmospheric  electric  current,  but  not  to  the  direction  of 
a  current  in  a  wire,  or  to  the  direction  of  the  currents  circulat- 
ing around  a  line  of  force  of  a  magnet,  but  rather  to  the  lines 
of  force  themselves.     The  atmospheric  electric  currents  are 
analogous  to  the  lines  of  force  of  a  magnet. 

269.  "So  far  as  I  am  aware  there  is  no  reason  to  believe 
that  the  electrical  resistance  of  a  solid  is  lessened  by  the 
initial  passage  of  a  current".    There  is  reason  for  such  a  be- 
lief, however,  especially  in  the  case  of  loose  particles  or  a 
conglomerate  mixture  such  as  the  Earth-crust,  which  is  the 
case  under  discussion.     It  does  not  seem  unreasonable  that, 
in  such  a  case,  when  a  current  picks  out  the  path  of  least 
resistance  and  overcomes   that  resistance,  that  the  current 
would  be  more  liable  to  follow  that  path  thereafter  than  a 
new  path  of  greater  resistance;  which  is  all  that  is  claimed. 

*E1.  Les.  Elec.  and  Mag.,  p.  145. 

tEncy.  Brit.,  Art.  Ter.  Mag.;  also  Nature,  33.  pp.  618,  620-1. 

JNature,  35,  473. 

SBulletin  No.  21,  U.  S.  Weather  Bureau,  p.  77. 


271]  REPLY  TO  DR.  C's  CRITICISM  459 

"This"  (Geological  Climatic  Changes)  "is  a  matter  con- 
cerning which  my  opinion  is  of  little  value"— another  instance 
of  tossing  aside  some  of  the  new  theory's  best  corroborative 
evidence,  for  the  alleged  lack  of  which  severe  criticism  has 
elsewhere  been  made. 

270 .  "I  cannot  help  feeling  that  if  the  author  were  to  con- 
sider some  of  his  conclusions  in  the  light  of  more  recent  de- 
velopments he  would  find  much  to  modify".     The  author  re- 
spectfully begs  to  protest  against  the  evident  meaning  and 
application  of  this  remark.    He  has  endeavored  to  keep  fully 
posted  on  all  the  developments  in  all  branches  of  physical 
science  by  means  of  the  published  works  and  the  leading  sci- 
entific journals  for  the  past  forty  years;   and  anything  that 
had  an  important  bearing  on  the  subjects  discussed  has  been 
fully  considered.     Everything,  however,  does  not  call  for  dis- 
cussion.    The  conception  of  Ostwald  that  energy  exists  inde_ 
pendently  of  matter;  the  plea  of  Einstein  for  the  identity  of 
matter  and  energy,  equating  one  gram  with  V2  ergs,  where  V 
is  the  velocity  of  light;  or  Planck's  more  recent  hypothesis  of 
the  discrete  or  atomic  structure  of  radiant  energy;  or  the  de- 
pendence of  mass  upon  speed,  one  of  your  own  favorite  doc- 
trines which  you  say  is  now  accepted  by  the  whole  scientific 
world — appears  to  appertain  rather  to  the  domains  of  meta- 
physics than  to  those  of  physical  science.    When  hard-headed 
scientists  adopt  such  intellectual  frills,  one  can  hardly  blame 
femininity  for  the  sudden  and  crazy  changes  of  fashion.     No 
one  who  denies  the  existence  of  matter  as  such  has  a  right 
to  call  himself  a  physcist.     Indeed,  with  matter  a  nonentity 
and  force  a  nonentity,  all  or  nonentities,  and  the  cosmical 
equation  reduces   to  absolute  zero. 

"Now-a-days  the  student  finds  little  to  disturb  him,  per- 
haps too  little,  in  the  idea  that  mass  changes  with  velocity; 
and  he  does  not  always  realize  the  full  meaning  of  the  con- 
sequences which  are  involved".* 

271.  You  say  it  is  an  error  to  hold  that  circular  motion 
increases  the  absolute  velocity,  because  the  two  forces  are 
at  right  angles  to  each  other.    According  to  the  parallelogram 

•Prof.   Arthur   Schuster.   Nature,    87,    336. 


460  APPENDIX  A  [272 

of  forces,  however,  the  diagonal  or  actual  path  owing  to  the 
two  forces  is  always  greater  than  either  of  the  other  sides 
and  is  traversed  in  precisely  the  same  time;  and  changing 
the  straight  diagonal  path  to  a  curvilinear  form  would  cer- 
tainly not  shorten  it. 

272.  Aside  from  remarks  of  minor  importance,  this  is  the 
extent  of  your  criticism.  All  the  rest  of  the  evidence  advanced 
farther  on — the  cosmical  processes  of  the  future,  the  neb- 
ulae, the  temporary  and  variable  stars,  the  derivation  of  the 
molecular  and  atomic  velocities  and  distances  through  the 
cosmic  chain  of  causation — appeal  to  you  in  vain;  as,  indeed, 
through  misconceptions  of  the  general  scheme  of  the  work 
and  unacquaintance  with  the  subjects  treated,  is  also  practi- 
cally true  of  about  all  the  evidence  advanced  in  support  of 
the  new  theory.  However  it  must  be  said  that  you  have  done 
comparatively  nobly,  as  certainly  no  one  has  done  half  as 
well  before. 


APPENDIX  B. 


EXTRACTS    FROM    THE  PRESS  NOTICES  OF  THE 
FIRST  EDITION  OF  THIS  WORK. 


"A  NEW  COSMOGONY 

"The  outlining  of  a  new  cosmogony  is  indeed  a  serious 
matter,  scientifically  considered,  which  should  be  undertaken 
in  a  serious  manner,  and  which  deserves  more  serious  con- 
sideration than  is  possible  in  the  hurry  and  bustle  of  a  news- 
paper office.  Of  such  nature  is  the  new  book  by  Evan  Mc- 
Lennan entitled  'Cosmical  Evolution'.  It  is  the  outcome  of 
careful  study  and  thought,  and  bears  evidences  on  every  page 
of  the  sincerity  of  the  author.  He  thinks  that  the  theory  of 
gravitation  is  not  likely  to  be  so  amended  as  to  account  for 
the  known  phenomena  of  physics  and  astronomy. 

"In  place  of  an  intangible  'attraction'  Mr.  McLennan  sub- 
stitutes 'real,  material  bonds'  which  connect  every  known 
heavenly  body  with  its  neighbors,  and  'every  phenomenon  of 
the  universe,  without  exception,  is  due  solely  to  the  action 
of  bodies  upon  one  another  through  and  by  means  of  these 
bonds  which  join  them  together'.  The  book  is  devoted  to  the 
development  of  this  'theory'  in  its  relations  to  physical  phe- 
nomena. The  author  shows  extraordinary  knowledge  of  the 
facts  of  nature,  into  all  departments  of  which  he  enters,  and 
displays  much  ingenuity  in  discussing  the  bearings  of  his 
truths  upon  his  hypothesis". — Boston  Daily  Advertiser,  Febru- 
ary 28,  1893,. 


"Four  or  five  hundred  years  before  the  beginning  of  our 
era  was  promulgated  the  Ptolemaic  cosmogony,  according  to 
which  the  earth  is  the  center  of  the  universe,  and  around  it 
revolve  all  other  bodies,  fixed  in  concentric  spheres.  In  the 
present  state  of  our  knowledge  and  theory  it  seems  astonish- 
ing to  us  that  this  theory  was  the  accepted  one  for  two  thou- 
sand years,  and  that  it  is  only  about  four  hundred  years — 
one-fifth  as  long — since  Copernicus  struck  out  the  heliocentric 
theory  of  our  planetary  system,  and  still  later  that  Galileo 
was  ecclesiastically  bulldozed  into  a  scientific  lie.  It  is  well 
nigh  inconceivable  now,  but  it  is  true  that  Corpernicus  stood 
so  much  in  awe  of  the  church  that  he  feared  to  promulgate 
his  theory  during  his  life,  preferring  to  put  the  barrier  of  his 
own  grave  between  himself  and  the  priests  before  doing  so. 
The  men  who  revolutionized  the  theory  in  that  day  were  exe- 
crated then,  but  are  glorified  now. 


462  APPENDIX  B 

"The  heliocentric  theory  may  be  regarded  as  pro  tanto 
a  finality,  and  until  lately  the  law  of  gravity  has  been  re- 
garded as  equally  final,  and  the  nebular  theory  as  little  less 
so.  Of  course,  it  is  understood  that  tione  ot  this  touches  the 
question  of  origin  at  all.  Lately  students  of  astronomy  have 
begun  to  find  that  many  undeniable  phenomena  are  not  ex- 
plicable by  means  of  the  theory  of  gravitation  or  the  modified 
nebular  hypothesis  of  Laplace,  and  this  has  led  to  more  or 
less  speculation  as  to  some  other  explanation  of  things. 

"The  latest  excursion  in  this  direction  is  found  in  a  volume 
called  'Cosmical  Evolution',  presenting  a  new  theory  of  the 
mechanism  of  nature,  by  Evan  McLennan,  recently  published. 
The  foundation  of  the  new  theory  is  the  agreement  of  scient- 
ists that  a  'number  of  bonds  or  lines  of  affinity  pertaining  to 
the  ultimate  elements  thereof,  bind  together  every  chemical 
compound',.  By  a  brief  course  of  reasoning  the  author  reaches 
the  conclusion  that  there  is  no  difference — other  than  mag- 
nitude and  complexity — between  a  molecule  and  a  world,  and 
that  there  is  no  reason  why  worlds  should  not  have  bonds 
'connecting  them  together  in  a  cosmical  molecule,  just  the 
same  as  the  ultimate  chemical  elements  have  in  a  chemical 
molecule'.  The  essential  principle  of  the  new  theory  is  that 
it  is  not  some  inconceivable  thing  like  force,  as  separate 
from  matter — such  as  gravitation  presupposes — that  holds 
the  universe  in  order,  but  that  'every  known  heavenly  body 
is  connected  with  its  neighboring  heavenly  bodies  by  means 
of  real,  material  bonds,  and  that  every  phenomenon  in  the 
universe,  without  exception,  is  due  solely  to  the  action  of 
bodies  upon  one  another  through  and  by  means  of  these 
bonds  which  join  them  together'.  These  bonds  the  author 
describes  as  'connective  atmosphere,'  acting  something  after 
the  fashion  of  an  elastic  string  between  each  body  and  the 
primary  around  which  it  revplves — through  which  are  trans- 
mitted the  forms  of  energy  known  to  us  as  light,  heat,  etc. 
And  this,  one  may  note,  disposes  at  a  stroke  of  the  colossal 
waste  involved  in  the  old  idea  that  the  sun  radiates  heat 
equally  in  all  directions,  in  which  case  this  earth  would  re- 
ceive only  about  one-twenty-nine  hundred  millionth  part  of 
the  whole  amount  radiated. 

"The  new  theory  begins  with  assuming  the  existence  of  a 
vast  nebular  spheroid — for  our  system — axially  rotating  with- 
in nearly  the  present  orbit  of  Neptune.  The  problem  of  the 
origin  of  the  matter  is  frankly  accepted  as  insoluble,  and 
probably  also  the  origin  of  its  rotation.  The  action  of 
molecular  affinities  on  the  outer  layers  of  the  spheroid,  with 
loss  of  heat  by  radiation,  and  possibly  other  causes,  developed 
it  is  argued,  a  crust  formation,  which,  owing  to  the  centri- 
fugal tendency  developed  by  rotation,  concentrated  the  in- 
crustations along  the  line  of  greatest  motion,  the  equator, 
continuing  to  expand  the  crust  while  the  core  continued  to 
shrink,  still  maintaining  the  elastic  connective  atmosphere 


APPENDIX   B  463 

between  the  two,  at  last  the  crust  or  ring  parted  at  its  weak- 
est point,  and  with  a  tremendous  cataclysm  collapsed  and 
rolled  up  into  a  planet,  swinging  around  the  diminished  prim- 
ary at  a  somewhat  greater  distance  than  when  a  ring.  And 
so  the  process  goes  on,  the  primary  throwing  off  planet  after 
planet,  the  planets,  satellites,  each  with  connective  bonds, 
disintegrating  and  redisintegrating,  until  the  whole  solar  sys- 
tem is  once  more  in  the  nebulous  state  where  the  theory 
begins,  ready  to  take  up  another  vast  cycle  of  cosmical  evolu- 
tion. This  process  is  still  going  on,  of  course.  The  hitherto 
inexplicable  sun  spots  are  the  beginning  of  encrustation  for 
the  benefit  of  a  new  planet.  The  equatorial  radius  of  the 
earth,  already  thirteen  miles  greater  than  the  polar,  is  in- 
creasing and  must  result  in  a  future  catastrophe  which  will 
be  the  birth  throes  of  another  moon.  The  ages  of  incrusta- 
tion of  the  sun,  when  the  plant  Mercury  was  yet  a  ring  and 
hid  the  sun's  face,  were  the  ice  age  on  this  earth,  and  by 
consequence  on  each  of  the  other  planets,  etc. 

"This  outlines,  or  hints,  the  theory.  The  author's  plan 
is  peculiar.  He  points  out  that  by  the  current  nebular  hypo- 
thesis neither  rotation,  translation,  contraction,  subdivision, 
nor  development  into  solar  or  sidereal  form  is  explained; 
that  some  of  the  moon's  motion,  the  distribution  of  the  sun's 
heat  on  the  earth's  surface,  and  at  varying  distances,  the  tides 
of  the  ocean  surface,  are  not  only  inexplicable  by,  but  are 
absolutely  incompatible  with,  the  current  theory;  that  the 
zodiacal  light,  the  solar  corona,  the  sun  spots,  and  the  con- 
nection of  these  with  our  atmospheric  pressure,  precipitation 
and  electrical  phenomena  are  also  absolutely  inexplicable 
by  the  current  theory,  and  then  he  proceeds  to  show  how 
they  are  all  simply  and  completely  soluble  by  his  theory,  in 
support  of  which  he  brings  them  all  successively,  the  ring 
of  Saturn,  the  comets,  the  meteorites,  every  one  of  the  move- 
ments of  the  magnetic  needle,  heretofore  so  mysterious,  the 
rocks,  the  coal  measures,  the  glacial  age,  and,  passing  to  the 
sidereal  heavens,  the  new,  the  variable,  the  periodical  stars, 
the  various  nebular  forms — all  are  marshalled  by  the  author 
in  support  of  his  theory,  the  result  being,  as  he  sums  it  up, 
that  'while  the  force  theory  seems  to  be  squarely  confuted  by 
several  very  important  phenomena,  and  is  incompatible  with, 
or  at  least  unrecognized  by,  many  of  the  rest,  every  phenom- 
enon of  nature,  without  exception,  appears  to  be  consonant, 
and  of  a  piece  with  the  new  connective  system  here  advanced/ 
And  yet  he  urges  that  the  theory  is  only  one  in  a  long  suc- 
cession of  steps  toward  the  whole  truth,  nearer  to  truth  than 
those  that  have  preceded  it,  but  as  likely  to  be  superceded  by 
further  advance,  though,  like  all  the  earlier  steps,  absolutely 
necessary,  in  its  place,  to  any  advance. 

"But  the  work  must  be  referred  to  the  reader.  Enough 
has  been  said  to  show  that,  unless  scientists  dissenting  from 
it  can  refute  its  arguments  or  disprove  its  statements  of  fact, 


464  APPENDIX   B 

it  must  have  a  very  profound  effect  on  beliefs  as  to  the  mode 
of  evolution.  ...  It  must  be  the  task  of  scientists  to 
study  it  and  decide  if  it  has  any  scientific  basis,  but  a  lay- 
man may  be  permitted  to  say  that  off  its  face  it  comes  nearer 
to  satisfying  a  lay  view  of  what  is  necessary  in  any  theory 
than  any  of  the  earlier  hypotheses." — Commercial  Advertiser, 
New  York,  January  14,  1893. 


"The  real  basis  of  distinction  between  the  old  and  new 
theories  lies  in  the  special  connections  insisted  on  by  Mr. 
McLennan,  and  here  he  is  probably  on  the  right  track.  That 
the  sun  and  planets  mutually  act  on  each  other  is  universally 
admitted,  and  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  constant 
passage  of  the  active  principle  along  particular  paths  would 
so  differentiate  those  parts  of  the  medium,  call  it  ether  or 
fluid,  as  to  form  special  lines  of  connection. 
************ 

"Mr.  McLennan's  criticisms  are  very  ingenious  and  his 
work,  which  is  highly  suggestive  and  original,  deserves  to  be 
read  with  attention  as  a  very  thoughtful  contribution  to  a 
very  difficult  and  important  subject  and  for  the  large  amount 
of  information  not  readily  accessible  to  the  ordinary  reader 
it  contains,  apart  from  the  author's  special  views". — The  Re- 
ligio-Philosophical  Journal,  Chicago,  April  1,  1893. 


"Whether  he  is  visionary  or  not  the  author  is  evidently  a 
thinker  and  an  original.  Mr.  McLennan  also  has  some  advan- 
tages over  other  evolutionists  in  the  fact  that  he  flies  higher 
into  infinite  space  and  is  harder  to  follow". — Chicago  Inter- 
Ocean,  Jan.  7,  1893. 


"Another  book  on  astronomical  theory  lies  before  us. 
'Cosmical  Evolution'  is  a  serious  scientific  study  of  the  dis- 
crepancies of  the  present  generally  apcepted  'gravitation' 
theory  of  the  universe.  The  author  seems  to  our  non-tech- 
nical eyes  to  be  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  ground  over 
which  he  is  traveling.  He  concludes  that  the  present  con- 
ceptions are  erroneous  and  substitutes  what  he  calls  the 
'connective  theory',  proceeding  to  show  how  the  actual  facts 
of  tidal  movements,  lunar  and  solar  phenomena  agree  with 
his  theory.  We  cannot  judge  of  the  importance  of  his  dis- 
coveries, but  he  has  had  favorable  notice  from  scientific  men, 
and  his  work  has  the  non-personal  tone  of  genuine  investiga- 
tion",— Review  of  Reviews,  February,  1893. 


"Of  Mr.  McLennan's  book,  it  may  at  least  be  said  that 
*  *  *  he  has  certainly  collated  numerous  facts  of  real 
interest  and  of  possible,  it  not  probable,  importance  in  the 
relations  to  which  he  seeks  to  attach  them". — Science,  Jan- 
uary 13,  1893. 


APPENDIX    B  465 

"Those  who  have  a  taste  for  speculation  on  abstruse  scien- 
tific questions  will  be  interested  in  Cosmical  Evolution,  by 
Evan  McLennan.  It  is  a  new  theory  of  the  physical  universe, 
which  substitutes  for  gravitation  a  system  of  bonds  connect- 
ing the  stars  and  planets  as  chemical  atoms  and  molecules 
are  assumed  to  be  connected,.  The  author's  handling  of  the 
subject  gives  evidence  of  much  ability". — The  Popular  Science 
Monthly,  April,  1891. 


"The  author  states  that  the  essential  principle  of  the  new 
theory  is  'that  every  known  heavenly  body  is  connected  with 
its  neighboring  heavenly  bodies  by  means  of  real,  material 
bonds  and  that  every  phenomenon  of  the  universe,  without 
exception,  is  due  solely  to  the  action  of  bodies  upon  one  an- 
other, through  and  by  means  of  these  bonds  which  join  them 
together'  (p.  48). 

"Among  the  principal  evidences  in  favor  of  the  existence 
of  this  material  planetary  connection  is  that  'we  actually  see 
them  with  the  naked  eye'  in  the  zodiacal  light  and  in  the 
streamers  of  the  solar  corona. 

"The  theory  is  of  a  very  general  nature  and  includes  not 
only  cosmical  but  terrestrial  phenomena,  such  as  aerial  and 
aqueous  tides,  terrestrial  electricity  and  magnetism.  The 
author  is  of  the  opinion  that  'the  greater  tidal  wave  is  due 
to  the  sun  and  the  lesser  to  the  moon.  (p.  291)' 

"The  conditions  of  prelunar  and  other  races  of  mankind 
are  discussed  (p.  360).  The  work  consists  of  399  pages.  There 
is  no  index". — Nature  xliv,  342. 

"The  author  of  this  work  is  not  a  crank,  nor  a  hobby  horse 
rider.  He  has  a  theory,  it  is  true,  and  he  fearlessly  expounds 
it,  no  matter  what  or  whom  it  opposes.  He  follows  the  sub- 
lime words  of  Spencer,  which  he  adopts  as  a  motto  for  his 
volume — 'To  the  true  reformer  no  institution  is  sacred,  no 
belief  above  criticism.  Everything  shall  conform  itself  to 
equity  and  reason;  nothing  shall  be  saved  by  its  prestige'. 
It  is  not  the  concern  of  Mr.  McLennan  what  has  been  taught 
heretofore,  or  who  has  taught  it,  but  rather  what  is  true, 
what  are  the  facts!  He  places  facts  above  authority,  truth 
above  authors,  and  he  has  advanced  his  theory  in  a  way  to 
command  the  attention  and  respect  of  the  thinking  portion 
of  his  race. 

"There  is  much  in  this  book  which  the  average  man  would 
be  interested  in  as  well  as  the  student  and  scientist.  It  is 
written  with  a  high  purpose  and  is  in  sympathy  with  all  pro- 
gressive thought". — Boston  Investigator,  December  17,  1890. 


"Evan  McLennan,  Dear  Sir:  I  am  so  sensitive  and  half 
crazy  on  all  astronomical  questions  that  on  the  publication  of 
your  volume  I  put  all  other  books  aside  that  I  might  read 
your  arguments  and  conjectures.  Your  book  is  one  more  val- 


466  APPENDIX   B 

uable  study,  at  least,  and  is  more  valuable  than  many  of  its 
predecessors,  because  it  springs  up  in  an  age  of  more  thought. 
"Your  theory  that  the  solar  system  is  all  under  the  influ- 
ence of  some  strings  or  cords  along  which  pass  power  and 
light  and  heat,  cannot  well  be  refuted.  Your  chapter  on  the 
'cooling'  process  which  begets  'heat'  is  very  fine,  only  equaled 
by  the  discussion  of  the  tides,  in  which  it  is  shown  that  one 
moon  horse  ought  not  to  lift  the  sea  very  high  when  twelve 
million  earth  horses  are  pulling  the  other  way, 

"You  may  well  feel  a  degree  of  pride  in  the  work,  because 
it  tells  the  public  how  much  it  has  been  deluded  by  many  of 
the  star-gazers  of  the  past.  I  do  not  write  as  an  astronomer, 
but  only  as  one  who  is  thankful  for  each  new  and  deep  in- 
vestigation. And  you  have  certainly  performed  wen  a  part 
of  the  great  task  which  rests  upon  the  students  of  the  sky. 

Your  friend, 

DAVID  SWING, 
October  28,  1890.  66  Lake  Shore  Drive". 


INDEX 


N.  B.     The  references  are  to  the  articles,  not  to  the  pages. 

The  inclosed  letters,    (a),    (b),    (c),  etc.,   denote  article  sub-divisions. 

The  letters  b,  m,  e,  denote  the  beginning,  middle,  or  end,  respectively, 
of  an  article,  or  an  article  sub-division. 

The  expression  142-150  means  these  articles  as  well  as  all  articles 
between  them;  and  the  expression  153,-6,-8  means  articles  153,  156,  158. 

The  letter  q  denotes  a  quotation  under  chapter  heading  preceding  the 
given  article. 

Article  numbers  are  given  on  upper  inner  corners  of  pages. 


Abbe,  Prof.  Cleveland,  relation  of  rainfall  and  sunspots,  121e, 
123e;  relations  of  atmospheric  pressure  and  sunspots,  122b; 
height  of  aurora,  160m;  seasonal  variations  of  terrestrial 
magnetism,  162e;  connection  of  earth-current  changes  and 
changes  of  magnetic  elements,  165m. 

Abbot,  C.  C.,  coincidence  of  maximum  deviation  of  the  verti- 
cal and  severe  earthquakes,  174e. 

Abercrombie,  Ralph,  sky-glows  from  eruption  of  Krakatao, 
149b. 

Aberration  of  light,  explanation  of  (Glazebrook),  107. 

Acceleration  of  velocity  by  circular  motion,  201,  271;  mutual 
planetary  accelerations  and  retardations,  83. 

Actio  in  distans,  see  under  Gravitation. 

Adams,  W.  S.,  highest  radial  velocity  of  the  stars,  23e. 

Airy,  Sir  G.  B.,  gravitational  experiments  in  Harton  Colliery, 
21,  209,  225,  247,  263. 

Albedo,  definition  of,  104b;  of  Jupiter's  satellites,  104. 

Alcyonium  as  a  tide  choronometer,  49e. 

Algol,  192b. 

Almagest,  or  Ptolemaic  System,  7. 

Alpha  Centauri,  distance  of,  60  (a) m. 

Amateur,  definition  of,  203q;   unsound  views   (Tesla),  27q. 

Anaximander,  periodic  alternation  of  birth  and  death  of 
worlds,  195q. 

Angot.  M.  A.,  resolution  of  diurnal  barometric  range,  48e, 
147m. 

Apex,  solar,  138m. 

Apsides,  line  of,  period  of  revolution,  35b,  134b. 

Arago,  Dominic  Francois,  diurnal  magnetic  variation,  161b. 

Archibald,  E.  Douglas,  east  to  west  upper  aerial  currents,  149b 

Argyle,  Duke  of,  "superstitious  dependence  on  the  authority 
of  great  men",  13e. 


468  INDEX 

Aristotle,  geocentric  theory,  6e. 

Armstrong,  Prof.  H.  E.,  relation  of  storm  frequency  to  lati- 
tude, 130e. 

Asteroids,  should  have  been  next  to  Jupiter  in  mass,  lllb; 
origin  of,  112. 

Astronomers,  Prof.  Chandler's  opinion  of,  203e. 

Astronomy,  earliest  conceptions  of,  2-5;  still  in  its  infancy,  12. 

Atmosphere,  absorption  of  solar  heat  by,  52m;  extension  of 
146;  constitution  of  variable,  123e;  constituents  above  100 
km.  146q;  upper  currents  of  from  east  to  west,  149;  atmos- 
phere of  ether  on  all  bodies,  96;  pressure  of,  related  to  var- 
iations of  planetary  bond  substance,  122e;  pressure  of,  re- 
lated to  atmospheric  electricity,  123;  aerial  tides  in,  147. 

Atmospheric  electricity,  diurnal  maxima,  161e;  connected 
with  planetary  bond-substance,  123;  currents  of,  ascend  at 
Equator  (Thompson,  Stewart),  157e,  267. 

Atoms,  infinite  in  number  and  form  (Democritus),  70b;  have 
circular  motions  (Seguin),  70b;  "the  world  of  atoms  is 
regarded  as  like  the  universe  of  heavenly  bodies"  (Mende- 
leef),  70e;  complexity  of  the  atom,  70e;  ultimate  velocities 
and  radii  of,  196;  constituents  of  an  atom  (Becquerel), 
200e;  every  atom  a  standing  miracle  (Addison),  195q;  na- 
ture of  the  ultimate  sub-divisions  of  matter,  195;  size  of 
atoms  in  a  drop  of  water  (Thomson),  196b. 

Attraction,  see  Gravitation. 

Aurora,  nature  of,  123;  height  of,  160;  relation  of,  to  clouds, 
123. 

Axial  rotation,  planetary  uniformity  of  direction  of,  explained, 
80(b),  (d)e. 

B 

Babinet,  M.,  Earth's  orbital  period  in  solar  spheroid,  65b. 

Bacon,  Lord  Francis,  bias  of  the  human  intellect,  150q. 

Ball,  Sir  R.  S.,  statement  of  the  law  of  gravitation,  16b;  grav- 
ity illustrated  by  means  of  a  rigid  rod,  18,  232,  244;  "neb- 
ular theory  ...  is  emphatically  a  speculation",  55q; 
no  difficulty  in  conceiving  nebular  rotation,  61e;  origin 
of  comets,  108q. 

Barometric  variations,  48e,  147;  clock-like  regularity  of,  for 
all  places  and  conditions,  48m;  cause  of,  147e;  only  one 
diurnal  maximum  in  the  polar  regions,  147m;  seasonal  var- 
iation, 148b;  greater  by  one-tenth  at  perihelion  than  at 
aphelion,  scarcely  perceptibly  greater  at  perigee  than  at 
apogee,  153e;  barometric  pressure  and  sunspots,  122. 

Bauer,  Dr.  L.  A.,  no  explanation  of  terrestrial  magnetism,  155q, 

Beattie,  Dr.,  magnificence  of  Nature,  Preface  q. 

Becquerel,  Jean,  on  the  constitution  of  matter,  200e. 

Bernouilli,  John,  explaining  the  obscure  by  the  more  obscure, 
67m. 

Berzelius,  test  of  a  theory,  63q. 


INDEX  469 

Bessel,  Friedrich  W.,  mass  of  Saturn's  ring,  108m. 

Bias,  see  Preconception. 

Blanford,  Henry,  connection  of  rainfall  and  sunspots,  121m. 

Boscovich,  "electric  solid  ether",  260e. 

Bourieres,  F.,  magnification  of  Brownian  movement,  196e. 

Brown,  J.  A.,  solar  rotation  period  of  magnetic  disturbances, 
165e. 

Brownian  Movement,  components  of,  196e. 

Bruno,  Giordano,  matter  not  a  mere  capacity  but  a  universal 
mother,  67q. 

Buchan,  A.,  diurnal  oscillation  of  barometer  alike  over  sea 
and  land,  146q. 

Buchner,  Friedrich  K.  C.  L.,  cause  of  tangential  planetary  mo- 
tion unknown  to  Newton  and  Laplace,  63q;  meteorites  con 
taining  organic  matter,  110m;  gradual  progression  in  Na= 
ture  from  the  imperfect  to  the  perfect,  170q. 

Burrard,  Sir  Sidney,  defection  of  theory  of  gravitation  in  th€ 
Himalaya,  247e. 


Campbell,  Prof.  W.  W.,  opposed  to  Profs.  Lowell  and  Very  re 

garding  temperature  of  Mars,  53e;   rotation  period  of  Sa 

turn's  ring,  108b. 

Carlyle,  Thos.,  the  old  empire  of  routine  ended,  393q. 
Carpenter,    Edward,    belief    in    gravitation    presents    gravest 

difficulties,  37q. 
Carr,  Judge  N.   T.,   one  evidence  against  a  theory  of  more 

weight  than  many  evidences  in  its  favor,  43q. 
Causation,  cosmic  chain  of,  195q,  196-7-;   periodic  alternation 

of  the  birth  and  death  of  worlds  (Anaximander,  Heraclitus 

Empedocles,  Carus,  Haeckel),  195q. 
Centrifugal  force  of  Earth  in  its  orbit,  26,  211,  218,  249e;   oi 

Moon,  26b. 

Challenger  expedition,  magnetic  results  of,  157e, 
Challis,  Prof.  James,  actio  in  distans  incomprehensible,  67b. 
Chalmers,  Dr.  Thos.,  destruction  of  Earth  comparable  to  thai 

of  a  leaf,  170q. 

Chambers,  Frederick,  barometric  pressure  and  sunspots,  122. 
Chandler,  Prof.  Seth  C.,  variation  of  terrestrial  latitudes,  174e; 

opinion  of  astronomers,  203e. 
Chauveau,  M.  A.-B.,  thirty  theories  of  terrestrial  magnetism 

155q. 

Childhood  of  the  intellect,  2-5. 
Chree,  Dr.  C.,  aerial  constitution  above  100  km.,  146q;  solar 

rotation  period  of  terrestrial  magnetism,  165m. 
Chrystal,  Prof.  George,  dielectric  strength  of  air  near  a  con 

ductor,  96e. 
Clifford,  Prof.  W.  K.,  meteoritic  theory  of  the  universe,  55m; 

planets  move  as  if  fastened  to  the  Sun  by  an  elastic  strong, 

91e. 
Climatic  changes  in  geological  time,  cannot  be  due  to  changes 


470  INDEX 

on  Earth's  surface  (Neumayr),  166q;  age  of  ice,  167;  crit- 
icism of  Croll's  theory  (Dawson,  Lockyer),  167e;  causes 
of  (Croll),  167,-8;  subdivisions  of  ice  age,  169. 

Cloud-zones,  148. 

Comets,  origin  of,  80  (f),  108q,  109,  113;  unexplained  wonders 
of,  108q;  direction  of  tails,  109m;  origin  of  tails  (Huggins), 
109m;  effect  of  passage  of  Earth  through  tail  of  Halley's 
comet,  109e;  comet  of  1680  almost  grazed  Sun,  50m;  spec- 
tra of  tails  similar  to  that  of  corona,  zodiacal  light,  and 
aurora  (Euler,  Angstrom,  Struve,  Proctor),  109e. 

Comstock,  Prof.  Geo.  C.,  variation  of  latitudes,  174m. 

Conjunction  and  opposition,  new  definition  of,  117b. 

Connective  substance,  relation  of  to  lightning,  265b. 

Connective  Theory,  essentials  of,  72;  premises,  72,-3,  259;  sur- 
face rigidity  from  cooling  of  spheroid,  75;   ring  formation 
and  separation,  76,-7;   planetary  birth,  77,  80m;   planetary 
bond,  77e,  79  (d),  176;   secondary  bond,  82;   relative  value 
of  secondary  and  primary  bonds,  126e,  127; 
results    from    a    planetary    birth: — loss    of      development, 
80 (a);   uniform  direction  of  planetary  rotation,  80 (b); 
recession  of  planet,  80  (c );  different  absolute  velocities 
of  planet  and  parent  surface,   80 (d);    increased  axial 
rotation  of  parent,  80  (e);  origin  of  comets  and  meteor- 
ites, 80  (f),  108q. 

origin  of  secondary  bonds,  82;  cosmical  gravitation,  91, 
-2,-3;  gravity  explained  by  continuous  action  of  matter 
(Newton,  Faraday),  91m;  or  by  that  of  an  elastic  string 
(Clifford),  21e;  or  by  the  thrust  of  an  incompressible  ether 
(Lodge),  91e;  effect  of  heat  on  gravitation  (Hicks,  Crookes) 
92(b)m;  action  of  secondary  planetary  bonds,  94;  terres- 
trial gravitation,  92 (b),  97,  177,  244e;  classification  of 
planetary  bonds,  114;  relations  of  quantitative  variations 
of  planetary  bonds  to  terrestrial  weather,  115-135;  factors 
of  the  planetary  bond  variations,  115,-6;  monthly  variations 
of  these  factors,  117;  monthly  and  yearly  variations  of 
these  factors  for  the  period  1840-1923,  118, -9;  connection  of 
the  yearly  variations  with  the  sun-spot  periods,  120;  do. 
with  the  periods  of  atmospheric  precipitation,  121;  do.  with 
the  periods  of  atmospheric  pressure,  122;  do.  with  the  per- 
iods of  atmospheric  electricity,  123 ;  the  solar  factor  of  the 
connexion  variation,  126 ;  the  lunar  factor  of  the  connexion 
variation,  127;  the  sidereal  factor  of  the  connexion  varia- 
tion, 128;  present  crust-development  on  the  Sun,  170,-l,-2; 
present  crust-development  on  the  Earth,  173;  variations  of 
terrestrial  latitudes,  174;  ring-projection  of  the  Earth- 
crust,  175;  primary  connexion  of  the  Earth-crust,  176; 
gravitation  upon  the  expanded  Earth-crust,  177;  disruption 
of  the  Earth-ring,  180;  limit  of  planetary  subdivision,  182; 
expansion  of  revolving  systems,  184;  interference  of  re- 
volving systems,  185 ;  ultimate  subdivisions  of  matter,  195 ; 
cosmic  chain  of  causation,  196;  molecular  and  planetary 


INDEX  471 

dimensions  giving  velocity  of  light,  196m;  ultimate  atomic 

velocities  and  radii,  196m;    results  of  a  grand  round  of 

cosmical  evolution,  199.    See  also  New  Theory. 
Conservation  of  energy,  19,  207,  214,  223,  233,  245e. 
Constitution  of  matter,  200;  living  matter  differs  from  other 

matter  in  degree,  not  in  kind  (Huxley),  200b. 
Copernican  System,  8. 

Cornish,  Vaughan,  Severn  Bore,  153e.  , 

Corona,  solar,  at  minimum  and  maximum  sunspots  (Lockyer), 

136q;  connection  of  coronal  streamers  and  sunspots  (Lock- 

yer),  137e;  great  length  of  coronal  streamers,  142me;  cor- 

onae  of  other  bodies,  142e;  real  direction  of  coronal  rays, 

143. 
Creak,  E.  W.,  various  theories  of  terrestrial  magnetism,  155q; 

intensity   of   magnetic    elements    greater   over   land    than 

over  water,  164  (c). 
Croll,  James,  "a  thing  cannot  act  where  it  is  not"  any  more 

than  "when  it  is  not",  67e;   causes  of  geological  climatic 

changes,  167e. 
Crookes,  Prof.  W.,  perfunctory  knowledge,  Preface  q;  pressure 

of  sunlight  must  alter  our  ordinary  ideas  of  gravitation, 

25e,    67e;    primordial   stages    of   systemic   evolution,    74e; 

effect  of  heat  on  gravity,  92(b)e;  diamonds  in  meteorites, 

HOe. 
Curtis,  R.  H.,  diurnal  barometric  variations,  48e,  147b. 

D 

D'Abbadie,  M.,  displacement  of  the  vertical,  174b. 

Dark  Stars,  139. 

D'Arcy,  Prof.,  quotation  from  Des  Cartes,  260e. 

Darwin,  Sir  G.  H.,  low  water  directly  under  Moon  in  open 
sea,  45b;  retirement  of  Moon  from  Earth  by  a  tidal  swell, 
65m;  Earth-tremors,  173m;  displacements  of  the  vertical, 
174b. 

Dastre,  Prof.  A.,  organic  matter  in  meteorites,  HOe. 

Dawson,  Sir  J.  W.,  on  causes  of  geological  climatic  changes, 
167m. 

De  Bort,  M.  L.  Tiesserance,  cloud  zones,  148b. 

Dechevrens,  P.  Marc,  description  of  zodiacal  light,  137m. 

Democritus,  universe  constituted  of  atoms  of  infinite  number 
and  forms,  70b. 

Denning,  W.  F.,  hard  to  distinguish  real  from  imaginary  fea- 
tures on  Saturn,  108q, 

Density  of  the  solar  spheroid,  60 (a);  of  the  ether,  116e,  200e, 
260,-6;  of  planetary  bonds,  115m,  126b,  141e. 

Denza,  P.  F.,  diurnal  magnetic  variations,  162e. 

Des  Cartes,  the  vortical  theory,  9;  necessary  to  doubt  in  order 
to  arrive  at  truth,  16q;  lay  aside  all  prejudice,  43q;  "give 
me  matter  and  I  will  give  you  the  universe",  260e. 

Deslandres,  M.  H.,  on  Doppler's  principle,  108m. 


472  INDEX 

Detroit  Free  Press,  reluctance  to  reject  accepted  views  though 
wrong,  203m. 

Diamonds  in  meteorites,  llOb. 

Diffraction  of  light  caused  by  ether  atmospheres,  96e. 

Discrepancies  of  planetary  masses  and  motions,  111. 

Dolbear,  Prof.  E.  A.,  matter  and  motion  the  two  realities,  67q; 
actio  in  distans  has  no  degree  of  rationality,  67m. 

Doolittle,  Prof.  C.  L.,  variation  of  latitudes,  174m. 

Doppler's  Principle,  as  applied  to  determine  the  period  of  the 
Saturnian  ring,  108m;  as  applied  to  determine  the  Sun's 
rotation-period,  108m;  accuracy  necessary  for  measure- 
ment by  (Michelson),  108m. 

Dufour,  Prof.  H.,  diurnal  electrical  maxima,  161e. 

Du  Prel,  simplest  theory  best,  91q. 

E 

Earth,  temperature  of  its  interior,  46b,  78  (a)  m,  112m;  fraction 
of  Sun's  heat  intercepted  by  it,  50b;  no  variation  of  solar 
heat  at  various  distances  from  Sun,  51;  effect  of  air- 
blanket  on  surface  temperature  (Langley),  52m;  temper- 
ature of  surface,  50,-l,-2;  temperature  difference  corres- 
ponding to  Sun's  distance-variation  (Herschel),  51b,  256b; 
comparative  solar  heat  on  Pole  and  Equator,  52b;  physical 
state  of  its  center,  78 (a) m;  relative  density  of  Earth-Sun 
and  Earth-Jupiter  bonds,  126e;  do,  of  Earth-Sun  and  Earth- 
Moon  bonds,  127;  age  of,  24,  227,  236;  form  of  (Young), 
174m. 

Earth-crust  continually  expanding  equatorially,  173;  ring-pro- 
jection  of,  175,-8. 

Earth-light  on  Moon  much  less  than  present  theory  requires, 
105. 

Earthquakes,  more  severe  at  maximum  deviation  of  the  verti- 
cal, 174e. 

Earth  tremors  (Darwin),  173me,  174b. 

Eddington,  A.  E.,  arrangement  of  Sidereal  System,  90e. 

Einstein,  identity  of  matter  and  energy,  90b,  270m. 

Electricity,  relation  of  to  ether  atmospheres,  96e;  propor- 
tional to  valency  in  electrolysis,  69,  260m;  currents  flow 
outside  of  conductor,  262;  is  a  form  of  matter,  266e. 

Electrons,  orbital  motions  of,  the  source  of  spectral  lines, 
200m;  shot  out  of  atoms  with  the  speed  of  light,  196m. 

Elements,  new,  200e;  transmutation  of,  200e. 

Energy,  identical  with  matter  (Einstein),  270m;  measured  by 
weight  or  mass — which?  26,  198,  211,  218,  229,  238,  249. 

Epidemic  Diseases,  aerial  transmission  of,  149e. 

Errors,  "All  our  views  have  been  developed  from  errors" 
(Liebig),  Iq;  childhood  of  the  intellect,  2-5;  present  con- 
ceptions descended  from  erroneous  predecessors,  Titlepage 
q,  12;  organic  solar  "willow  leaves"  (Herschel),  5;  recent 
changes  in  physical  theories  (Soddy),  14;  tendency  of 


INDEX  473 

mind  to  rest  on  assumptions  (Faraday),  16q;  Sun  can  at- 
tract Jupiter  without  intervening  medium  if  so  ordered 
(Kelvin),  37q;  resistance  increases  a  comet's  speed 
(Young),  41;  "Can  gray  hairs  make  folly  venerable?" 
(Junius),  37q;  comparative  solar  heat  on  Pole  and  Equator, 
52 ;  theoretical  conceptions  of  science  largely  factitious  and 
little  better  than  a  mirage  (Larmor),  56q;  "the  more  heat 
a  body  loses,  the  hotter  it  will  become"  (Newcomb),  64; 
no  absurdity  so  great  that  it  cannot  be  planted,  in  the 
human  mind  (Schopenhauer),  98q;  comet's  tails  never 
point  to  Sun  (Lodge;,  109m;  extension  of  the  zodiacal  light 
in  more  than  one  direction  from  Sun,  137;  universal  prev- 
alence of  every  atom  (Lodge),  146q;  immaterial  substance 
(Huxley),  155;  most  cherished  tenets  of  last  generation  of 
men  of  science  now  abandoned  (Ogg),  203q;  reluctance  to 
reject  accepted  wrong  views,  203m;  force  does  no  work, 
233,  245m. 

Eta  Argus,  190q. 

Ether,  density  of,  200e,  260,-6;  ether  atmospheres,  96,  explains 
sonorous  sand,  contact  electricity,  diffraction,  etc.,  96e; 
resistance  to  motion  in,  201b. 

Euler,  Leonard,  "Do  not  see  how  two  bodies  at  a  distance 
can  act  upon  each  other  if  there  be  nothing  between 
them",  67e;  great  affinity  between  comet's  tails,  zodiacal 
light,  and  aurora  borealis,  109e. 

Explosion,  nature  of,  200e. 


Falling  bodies,  velocity  of  towards  Earth's  center,  22b;  law 
of  as  applied  to  lunar  perturbations,  28-31. 

Faraday,  Michael,  actio  in  distans  ignores  entirely  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  conservation  of  force,  67e;  tendency  of  the 
mind  to  rest  on  assumptions,  16q;  all  liable  to  error,  50q; 
gravity  explained  by  continuous  action  of  matter,  91m. 

Faye,  M.,  criticism  of  nebular  hypothesis,  65b;  connection  of 
magnetic  variations  and  sunspots,  165b. 

Fiords  are  polar  crust  fractures   (Gregory),  7Gb. 

Fisher,  Rev.  O.,  terrestrial  origin  of  Moon,  78(b)b. 

Flammarion,  Camille,  v  arm  temperature  of  Mars,  f.3b;  me- 
teorites containing  organic  matter  from  other  worlds,  llOb. 

Flogel,  M.,  height  of  aurorae,  160b. 

Flood  legend,  a  scientific  basis  for,  134,141. 

Flower,  Prof.  W.  H.,  on  scientific  prejudice,  Iq,  5e. 

Folie,  M,.,  criticism  of  Sir  William  Thomson's  theory  of  Earth 
centrally  solid,  78  (a)  m. 

Force,  what  is  it?  67;  has  no  objective  reality  (Tait),  67b; 
"explains  the  unknown  in  terms  of  the  more  unknown" 
(Tyndall),  67b;  bodies  cannot  act  where  they  are  not 
(Newton),  67b;  "One  of  the  most  obscure  problems  in 
physics"  (Tait),  67b;  does  not  admit  of  explanation 
(Challis),  67b;  "Explaining  phenomena  by  chimerical 


474  INDEX 

principles  more  obscure  than  those  presented  for  inves- 
tigation" (Bernouilli),  67m;  "A  fundamental  fact"  (Kel- 
vin), 67m;  Newton,  however,  returned  to  the  idea  that 
bodies  do  act  where  they  are  Hot  (Taylor),  67m;  grav^- 
itation  is  a  force,  an  actio  in  distans,  instantaneously  om- 
nipresent, infinitum  (Taylor),  67m;  actio  in  distans  has 
no  degree  of  rationality  (Dolbear),  67e;  "A  thing  cannot 
act  where  it  is  not"  any  more  than  it  can  act  "before 
it  is,,  or  when  it  is  not"  (Croll),  67e;  "Two  bodies  separ- 
ated by  an  absolute  void  cannot  act  on  each  other"  (De 
Boisbadron,  Guthrie),  67e;  actio  in  distans  ignores  entirely 
the  principle  of  the  conservation  of  force  (Faraday),  67e; 
"Do  not  see  how  two  bodies  can  act  upon  each  other  if 
there  is  nothing  between  them"  (Euler),  67e;  "Molecules 
of  bodies  and  bodies  themselves  are  not  really  self-at- 
tractive" (Seguin),  67e;  does  no  work,  233,  245m;  force 
and  energy,  245m. 

Forces,  parallelogram  of,  39,  201. 

Friction  of  the  ether,  201b. 

Fritz,  H.,  relation  between  auroras  and  clouds,  123. 

G 

Galileo's  discoveries,  8e. 

Garnett,  William,  theory  must  be  consistent  with  natural 
phenomena,  91q. 

Geikie,  Archibald,  evidences  of  interglacial  periods,   169b. 

Geikie,  Prof.  James,  various  opinions  regarding  interglacial 
periods,  169e. 

Gibson,  Dr.  Geo.  A.,  mathematics  less  important  than  insight 
into  physical  facts,  38e. 

Gilvert,  Prof.  C.  K.,  Moon  was  once  an  Earth-ring,  78(b)m. 

Glaciation,  evidence  of  interglacial  periods  (Geikie),  169b; 
various  opinions  regarding  interglacial  periods  (Geikie), 
169e. 

Glazebrook,  R.  T.,  aberration  of  light,  107b. 

Goethe,  criticism  of  the  theory  of  gravitation,  68e. 

Gossamer,  possibly  a  form  of  precipitation,  144m. 

Gravitation,  present  theory  of,  10;  law  of,  differently  stated, 
16,  222,  231,  242;  law  of,  not  correct  (Poincare),  16q;  law 
of,  self-contradictory,  17-8;  most  accurate  law  known  to 
science  (Turner),  20b;  violates  law  of  conservation  of  en- 
ergy (Laing),  19e;  explains  every  movement  of  the  Solar 
System  (Laing),  25b;  "remains  the  largest,  clearest,  sure- 
est  yet  attained  by  man"  (Taylor),  67m;  attraction  of  a 
sphere  or  spherical  shell  at  its  center,  20,  208,  215,-6,  224, 
234,  246;  of  Earth-Moon  rigid  rod  system  (Ball),  18,  206, 
213,  232,  244;  greater  under  than  on  the  Earth's  surface, 

21,  209,  225,  247,  263e;   in  a  hole  through  Earth's  center, 

22,  210,  217,  226,  235,  248:  does  not  account  for  the  "run- 
a-way    stars,"    23;    gravitational    solar    heat    inconsistent 


INDEX  475 

with  geological  evidence,  24,  227,  236;  truth  of  Newtonian 
theory  beyond  reach  of  cavil  (Proctor),  25b;  every  minute 
perturbation  of  the  Solar  System  strictly  accounted  for 
by  gravitation  (Herschel),  25bm;  enormous  pressure  of 
sunlight  inconsistent  with  such  accuracy  (Crookes),  25e; 
Moon's  motion  not  explained  by  gravitation  (Stone),  27b; 
problem  of  three  bodies  not  solved  by  it,  27-36;  problem 
of  two  bodies  likewise,  37-42;  perturbing  forces  on  Moon 
never  precisely  computed  (Hill),  36b;  belief  in  theory  of 
gravitation  presents  grave  difficulties  (Carpenter),  37q; 
theory  of,  depends  on  Kepler's  second  law,  37,  251;  law  of 
equal  areas  in  equal  times  baseless,  37-42;  incompatible 
with  tidal  phenomena,  see  Tides;  also  with  amount  and 
distribution  of  solar  heat,  24,  50;  "obvious  facts  which  the 
law  of  gravtiation  fails  to  explain"  (Schuster),  56q;  actio 
in  distans  absurd  (Newton),  67b;  do.  irrational  (Dolbear, 
Guthrie,  Tait,  Challis,  Euler),  67be;  "a  fundamental  fact 
behind  which  it  is  impossible  to  get"  (Kelvin),  67m;  "this 
universally  disseminated  delirium  of  lunatics"  (Goethe), 
68m;  gravitation  "is  really  an  actio  in  distans 
infinitum  .  .  .  omnipresent"  (Taylor),  67m;  "A  body 
really  moves  only  because  it  is  pushed  by  something  from 
behind"  (Lodge),  67m;  single  body  has  no  attraction,  243; 
measured  in  feet  per  second,  250e;  acts  through  material 
agency,  250e;  "a  body  cannot  act  where  it  is  not"  (Croll), 
67e;  defection  of  theory  of  gravtiation  in  the  Himalaya, 
247e. 

Gravitation,  new  theory,  see  Connective  Theory. 

Gravitational  strain  of  a  revolving  planet,  26,  198,  211,-8,  238, 
249e. 

Gravity  and  force,  67. 

Gregory,  Prof.  J.  W.,  fiords  are  crust-fractures,  76e. 

Grye,  M.   Bouquet  de  la,  amount  of  lunar  aerial  tide,  48e. 

Gyroscopic  structure  of  matter,  200 . 

H 

Haeckel,  Prof.  Ernst,  intellectual  weakening  of  Newton  in 
his  later  years,  67e;  periodic  alternation  of  birth  and 
growth  of  worlds,  195q. 

Hale,  Prof.  G.  E.,  definition  of  amateur,  203q. 

Hall,  Prof.  Asaph,  mass  of  Saturn's  ring,  108m;  divisions  of 
Saturn's  ring  doubtful,  108e. 

Halley,  Edmund,  explanation  of  terrestrial  magnetism,  155q. 

Halley's  comet,  effect  of  Earth's  passage  through,  109e,  137m. 

Hann,  Dr.  Julius,  regularity  of  aerial  tide  at  various  eleva- 
tions and  in  all  states  of  weather,  48m. 

Hardness  and  rigidity  explained  by  swiftness  of  constituent 
motions,  200m. 

Harton  Colliery,  Airy's  gravitational  experiment  in,  21,  209, 
225,  247,  263e. 


476  INDEX 

Harvey,  Prof.  Arthur,  solar  rotation  period  of  magnetic  var- 
iations, 165e. 

Heat,  generated  by  contraction,  24,  64;  Newton's  law  of  heat- 
radiation,  50bm;  Stefan's  law,  50e;  heat  increases  by  cool- 
ing (Newcomb),  64;  heat  of  original  solar  spheroid,  73e; 
heat  affecting  gravity  (Hicks,  Crookes),  92(b)me;  radi- 
ation possibly  not  equal  in  all  directions  (Young,  Laing), 
98q;  heat  and  temperature  different  (Langley),  99b;  heat 
passing  through  space  not  necessarily  heat  (Tait),  99b. 

Heat,  connective  theory  of  ,98-100;  does  not  take  place  equal- 
ly in  all  directions    (Laing),   98q;    distribution  of  solar 
heat  on  planet,  99e;   nature  of  heat  conduction,  200b. 

Hecker,  Prof.,  deviation  of  vertical  greater  N — S  than  E — W, 
174m. 

Heliocentric  theory,  conceived  by  Pythagoras,  6,  8;  later  by 
Copernicus,  8. 

Heraud,  M.,  period  of  Mediterranean  Sea  tides  24  hours,  48m. 

Herschel,  Sir  John,  "Willow-leaves"  as  organisms,  5;  every 
planetary  perturbation  accounted  for  by  gravitation,  25b; 
proof  of  law  of  equal  areas,  37m;  great  regularity  of  bar- 
ometric variations,  48m;  no  complete  theory  of  all  light- 
phenomena,  98q;  greatest  linear  extension  of  the  heavens, 
128b;  union  of  lunar  and  solar  tidal  waves,  152m;  consti- 
tution of  the  Nubeculae,  188m;  variable  and  new  nebulae, 
189b;  unfetter  the  mind  from  prejudice,  230q. 

Herschel,  Sir  William,  Saturn's  ring  solid,  108m. 

Hicks,  Prof.  W.  M.,  heat  affecting  gravity,  92(b)e. 

Hickson,  S.  J.,  alcyonium  as  a  tide  chronometer,  49e. 

Hill,  G.  W.,  perturbing  force  on  Moon  never  precisely  com- 
puted, 36b. 

Hildebrandsson,  M.,  height  of  aurora,  160m. 

Himalaya,  defection  of  theory  of  gravitation  in,  247e. 

Hinrichs,  G.,  origin  of  minor  planets,  112b. 

Hobson,  Prof.  E.  W.,  mathematical  demonstrations  affected 
with  errors,  38e. 

Holden,  Prof.  E.  S.,  origin  of  meteorites,  llOe;  changes  of 
nebular  forms,  189. 

Hoist,  Dr.  O.,  tides  of  under-ground  water,  49e;  one  period 
of  glaciation,  169e. 

Horizontal  enlargement  of  visual  objects,  102. 

Huggins,  Sir  W.,  origin  of  comet's  tails,  109m;  solar  corona 
not  a  gas,  142m;  spectrum  of  temporary  stars,  190b. 

Hull,  Prof.  G.  T.,  pressure  of  sunlight,  25m. 

Humboldt,  regularity  of  barometric  variations  for  all  places 
and  conditions,  48m. 

Huxley,  Prof,,  liberality  obligatory  on  men  of  science,  16q; 
"Mathematics  is  like  a  mill,"  38m;  untrue  doctrine  sus^ 
ceptible  of  a  true  interpretation,  50q;  one  fact  clearly 
against  a  theory  condemns  it,  55q;  temptation  to  regard 
accepted  views  as  exhaustive,  150q;  object  of  inquiry  not 
to  annihilate  the  unknown,  but  to  remove  its  boundaries 


INDEX  477 

a  little  farther  from   our   sphere   of  action,   187q;    truth 
eternal,  190q;  living  matter  differs  from  other  matter  in 
degree,  not  in  kind,  200b. 
Hydrogen,  number  by  lines  in  spectrum  of,  70e. 

I 

Immaterial  substance,  8m,  155,  260,-6. 
Innes,  R.  T.  A.,  the  ethical  basis  of  science,  204q. 
Inertia,  as  related  to  weight  and  mass,  26,  198,  211,  218,  229, 
238,  249. 


Jevons,  W".  S.,  cause  of  aurora,  123b. 

Job,  "Knowest  thou  the  ordinances  of  heaven?"  50q. 

Judd,  Prof.  J.  W.,  flow  of  solid  rock  masses,  78m. 

Junius,  "Can  gray  hairs  make  folly  venerable?"  37q. 

Jupiter,  different  values  of  mass  of,  94e;  connection  of  orbital 
period  of  with  sunspot  periods,  135,  139e,  264;  of  the  past 
century,  those  years  about  the  middle  of  which  Jupiter 
comes  into  opposition  or  conjunction  are  years  of  maxi- 
mum or  minimum  sunspots,  respectively,  135b,  264;  dark 
transits  of  Jupiter's  satellites,  104;  relative  density  of 
Earth-Sun  and  Earth-Jupiter  bonds,  126b;  connection  of 
with  solar  corona,  143,  260e. 

K 

Kapteyn,  Prof.  J.  C.,  arrangement  of  the  Sidereal  System,  90e. 

Keeler,  Prof.,  rotation  of  Saturn's  ring,  108b. 

Kelvin,  Lord,  see  Thomson. 

Kepler,  conception  of  Solar  System,  8m;  second  law  of,  proofs 
by  Proctor,  Herschel,  and  Newton,  37me;  disproo!  of  sec- 
ond law,  37,-9,  40,  253;  unlike  areas  described  by  two 
planets,  212,  219,  254;  third  law  the  cosmic  chain  of 
causation,  196. 

Keyser,  C.  J.,  criticism  of  mathematics,  38e. 

Kingsmill,  Thos.  W.,  "terrene  tide  largely  influenced  by  the 
sun",  49e. 

Koenig,  Prof.  G.  A.,  diamonds  in  meteorites,  110m<. 

Kohlschuetter,  Arnold,  highest  radial  velocity  of  the  stars,  23e 

Krakatao,  sky-glows  from  eruption  of,  149. 


Ladd,  George  T.,  surrounding  the  expanding  island  of  the 
visible  is  the  boundless  sea  of  the  invisible,  89q. 

Laing,  Samuel,  conservation  of  energy  and  the  law  of  gravita- 
tion, 19e;  gravitational  solar  heat  and  geological  periods, 
24e;  "Laws  of  Nature  cannot  give  contradictory  results", 
73q;  radiation  possibly  not  equal  in  all  directions,  98q; 


478  INDEX 

Newtonian  law  explains  all  movements  of  the  Solar  Sys- 
tem, 25b. 

Lamb,  Prof.  Horace,  lunar  aerial  tide  almost  imperceptible, 
147m. 

Lane,  J.  Homer,  ratio  of  attraction  on  contracted  surface  to 
that  on  original  surface,  63m. 

Lane's  law,  the  more  heat  a  body  loses  the  hotter  it  gets 
(Newcomb),  64b;  is  a  delusion  (Thomson),  64b. 

Langley,  Prof.  S.  P.,  acceptance  of  time-honored  scientific 
dogmas,  13m;  scientific  truths  are  not  dogmas,  27q;  effect 
of  air-blanket  on  Earth-temperature,  52m;  annual  amount 
of  Sun's  heat  on  outer  atmosphere,  52e;  relation  of 
Sun's  heat  and  Sun's  temperature,  99b;  origin  of  comet's 
tails,  109e;  great  length  of  coronal  streamers,  142b;  me- 
teorites containing  stratified  matter  from  other  worlds, 
llOb;  life  from  other  worlds,  180. 

Laplace,  nebular  hypothesis,  11. 

Larmor,  Sir  J.,  theoretical  conceptions  of  science  little  better 
than  a  mirage,  56q;  minute  gyrostats  constituting  matter, 
195q;  electron  orbits  in  atoms,  200m. 

Latitude  displacement,  174;  various  assigned  causes  of,  174e; 
latitude  and  storm-frequency,  130e. 

Law,  of  gravitation,  what  is  it?  16;  of  falling  bodies,  22b;  do. 
applied  to  lunar  perturbations,  28-31;  Stefan's  law,  50e; 
law  of  parsimony  constitutes  the  only  barrier  between 
science  and  superstition  (Romanes),  73q;  Kepler's  laws, 
see  Kepler;  Lane's  law,  64;  "Laws,  of  nature  cannot  give 
contradictory  results"  (Laing),  73q. 

Le  Bon,  mysterious  virtue  of  mathematical  equations,  38m. 

Lebedew,  Prof.  Peter,  pressure  of  sunlight,  25m. 

Lecoq  de  Boisbadron,  M.,  action  takes  place  by  contact  only, 
67e. 

Legends  of  creation,  3. 

Leibnitz,  modification  of  vortical  theory  and  geological  views, 
9m. 

Liebig,  "All  our  views  have  oeen  developed  from  errors",  Iq. 

Life,  as  affected  by  future  processes  of  evolution  on  Earth, 
179,  180;  life  from  other  worlds  (Langley),  180;  prelunar 
and  other  races,  181;  living  matter  differs  from  other 
matter  in  degree,  not  in  kind  (Huxley),  200b. 

Light,  no  complete  theory  of  (Herschel),  98q;  connective 
theory,  101-107;  problem  involved  in  connective  theory, 
103;  radiation  possibly  not  equal  in  all  directions,  (Laing, 
Young)  98q;  diffraction,  96e;  dark  transits  of  Jupiter's 
satellites,  104;  Earth-light  on  Moon  less  than  present 
theory  requires,  105;  sunlight  and  Earth-light  on  Moon, 
105;  Moon's  sunlight  on  Earth,  106;  pressure  of  sunlight, 
25;  aberration  of  light,  107;  derivation  of  light-velocity, 
196;  frequency  of  oscillation  of  light  waves,  196e;  velocity 
of  light=wavelength  X  frequency,  196e;  light  modifying 


INDEX  479 

constitution  of  bodies,  200b;  albedo,  104b;  components  of 
light  motion,  196m. 

Lightning,  relation  to  connective  substance,  265b. 

Lockyer,  J.  Norman,  estimates  of  the  Sun's  temperature, 
50m;  climate  of  Mars  like  that  of  Earth,  53e;  meteoritic 
hypothesis,  55m;  simplest  explanation  best,  73q;  arrange- 
ment of  Sidereal  System,  90m;  corona  at  minimum  and 
maximum  sunspots,  136b;  connection  of  coronal  streamers 
and  sunspots,  137e;  great  length  of  coronal  streamers, 
142e;  criticism  of  Croll's  theory  of  climatic  changes,  167e; 
formation  of  sunspots,  170e;  explanation  of  variable  stars, 
190q,194m. 

Lodge,  Sir  Oliver,  gravitational  strain  upon  the  Moon,  26; 
new  tidal  theory,  47;  "There  can  be  no  attraction  across 
really  empty  space",  67e;  action  of  gravity  like  thrust  of 
incompressible  ether,  91e;  greater  ethereal  density  near 
gross  matter,  96e;  comet's  tails  never  point  to  Sun,  109m; 
universal  prevalence  of  every  atom,  146q;  the  known  is 
insignificant  compared  with  the  unknown,  204q;  density 
of  the  ether,  200e,  260, -6. 

Lowell,  Percival,  warm  temperature  of  Mars,  53e. 

M 

Magellanic  Clouds,  cause  of  their  apparent  irregularity,  188m; 
changes  in,  189m. 

Magnetic  Poles,  always  in  a  line  perpendicular  to  ecliptic 
plane,  157b. 

Man,  prelunar  races,  181;  earliest  astronomical  conceptions, 
2-5. 

Marchaud,  E.,  zodiacal  light,  136q. 

Marien-faden,  144m. 

Mars,  solar  heat  on,  53;  its  temperature  equal  to  that  of 
Earth  (Flammarion,  Lowell,  Very),  53b;  its  temperature 
much  lower  than  that  of  Earth  (Wallace,  Campbell),  53e; 
should  have  been  larger  than  Earth,  lllb. 

Mathematics,  "is  like  a  mill"  (Huxley),  38m;  some  irrational 
examples  in,  38,  252;  mysterious  virtue  of  equations  (Le 
Bon),  38m;  less  important  than  insight  into  physical  facts 
(Gibson),  38m;  erroneous  results  from  (Hobson),  38e; 
tendency  to  hide  ignorance  under  (Schuster),  38e;  criti- 
cism of  (Keyser),  38e. 

Mascari,  A.,  spots  on  Saturnian  ring,  108m. 

Mass  versus  weight  as  affecting  gravitational  strain,  26,  198, 
211,  218,  229,  238,  249. 

Matter,  a  universal  mother  (Bruno,  Des  Cartes),  67q,  260e; 
matter  and  motion  the  two  philosophical  realities  (Dol- 
bear),  67q;  till  we  know  what  matter  is  it  will  be  pre- 
mature to  speculate  on  the  nature  of  force  (Tait),  67m; 
origin  of  beyond  our  grasp,  70m;  always  conjoined  with 
motion,  70m;  nature  of  ultimate  subdivisions,  195;  con- 
stitution of,  like  that  of  the  stellar  universe  (Mendeleef), 


480  INDEX 

196b;  size  of  atoms  in  a  drop  of  water  (Thomson),  196b; 
composed  of  rapidly-spinning  gyrostats  (Larmor),  195q; 
every  atom  a  standing  miracle  (Addison),  195m;  trans- 
mutation of,  200e;  forms  of,  .266;  is  energy  (Einstein), 
270m;  is  motion,  90b,  270e. 

Maunder,  E.  W.,  solar  rotation  period  of  magnetic  variation, 
165m. 

Mayer,  Dr.  J.  R.,  fraction  of  Sun's  heat  intercepted  by  Earth, 
50b. 

Maxwell,  Clerk,  meteoritic  hypothesis  of  Saturn's  ring,  108b; 
mass  of  Saturnian  ring,  108m;  pressure  of  sunlight,  25m. 

Meldola,  R.,  test  of  the  truth  of  a  theory,  63q. 

Meldrum,  Dr.,  connection  between  sunspots  and  rainfall,  121b. 

Mendeleef,  Prof.,  world  of  atoms  like  the  universe  of  heaven- 
ly bodies,  70b,  196b;  density  of  the  ether,  200e. 

Meteoritic  hypothesis  of  cosmical  evolution  (Lockyer)  55b. 

Meteorites,  110;  origin  of,  80b,  llOe;  contain  organic  matter 
(Langley,  Hann,  Flammarion,  Meunier,  Buchner,  Koenig, 
Maydenbauer,  Crookes,  Dastre),  110;  bearers  of  life  from 
other  worlds  (Langley),  180b. 

Meterological  data  scanty,  132. 

Meunier,  M.Stanislaus,  meteorites  containing  organic  matter, 
HOb. 

Meydenbauer,  A.,  diamonds  in  meteorites,  llOe. 

Michelson,  Dr.  A.  A.,  accuracy  necessary  for  measurements 
according  to  Doppler's  principle,  108m. 

Microseisms,  173m. 

Mill,  J.  S.,  that  theory  best  which  explains  the  facts  of  Na- 
ture with  fewest  assumptions,  114q;  our  strongest  con- 
victions must  be  left  open  for  facts  contradicting  them, 
114q;  sacrifice  of  moral  courage  for  the  sake  of  intellectual 
peace,  187q. 

Miller,  G.  A.,  two  stellar  streams  in  opposite  directions,  90e. 

Millikan,  Prof.  R.  A.,  the  past  fifteen  years  unparalleled  for 
scientific  advances,  203q. 

Milman,  Dean,  obstinate  adherence  to  things  antiquated,  63q. 

Milne,  John,  ground-water  tides,  49e. 

Minor  planets,  origin  of,  112. 

Molecular  bonds,  69. 

Molecular  motions,  similar  to  those  of  the  Solar  System 
(Preece,  Mendeleef),  69q,  70be;  extremely  great  velocities 
of,  196me. 

Molloy,  Gerald,  the  true  test  of  a  theory,  114q. 

Moon,  motions  not  explained  (Stone),  27q;  lunar  aerial  tide, 
48e;  originated  in  tidal  swell  on  Earth  (Darwin,  Picker- 
ing), 65m,  78m;  scar  left  by  Moon's  retirement  now  the 
basin  of  the  Pacific  Ocean  (Fisher,  Pickering),  78m;  was 
first  a  ring  around  Earth  (Gilvert),  78(b)m;  Earth's  sun- 
light on  Moon  (Very),  105m;  Moon's  sunlight  on  Earth, 
106;  effect  of,  on  terrestrial  magnetism,  162b;  air,  moisture 
and  temperature  on,  181m;  effect  of  on  tides,  see  Tides. 


INDEX  481 

Motion,  molecular,  70;  always  conjoined  with  matter,  70m; 
origin  of,  70m,  90b;  accounts  solely  for  the  various  prop- 
erties of  matter,  200m;  motion  and  matter  the  two  philos- 
ophical realities  •  (Dolbear),  67q;  extreme  velocities  of 
atomic  and  molecular  motions,  196m;  is  the  sole  product 
of  cosmical  evolution,  196m;  different  properties  of  mat- 
ter explained  solely  by  differences  of  motion,  200m;  is 
matter,  90b,  270e. 

Mouchez.  Admiral,  we  can  never  see  the  most  distant  stars, 
85q. 

N 

Nebulae,  regular,  187;  irregular,  188;  changes  of  form,  189; 
nebular  rotation  easily  conceived  (Ball),  61e. 

Nebular  Hypothesis,  11;  objections  to,  57-61;  modifications, 
55;  "Emphatically  a  speculation"  (Ball),  55q;  a  statement 
of  actual  fact  (Thomson),  64m;  extreme  difficulty  of  sub- 
jecting it  to  mathematical  treatment  (Spencer),  65m;  re- 
quires in  the  universe  regions  with  very  different  temper- 
atures (Faye),  65m;  enormous  difficulties  in  it  (Proctor), 
65e;  Proctor's  improvement,  65e;  still  answers  best 
(Wolf),  65e;  various  discordances,  66;  probability  great 
against  chance  arrangement  of  the  Solar  System  (Ball), 
66e. 

Neptune,  should  have  been  much  larger  than  Jupiter,  lib; 
temperature  of,  108b. 

Nuemayr,  Dr.  M,.,  geological  changes  of  Earth's  surface  can- 
not account  for  its  changes  of  climate,  166q. 

Newcomb,  Prof.  Simon,  gravitation  does  not  account  for 
"runaway"  stars,  23;  effect  of  diminution  of  solar  heat  on 
Earth,  53b;  ratio  of  central  attraction  on  contracted  sur- 
face to  that  on  original  surface,  63m;  by  losing  heat  a 
body  gets  hotter,  64b;  misconception  regarding  zodiacal 
light,  137b. 

New  Theory  (See  Connective  Theory),  recent  acceptance  of 
it  in  part:  Planetary  bonds  (Soddy),  14e;  origin  of  Moon 
(Darwin),  65m,  78m;  planetary  ring-collapse  (Young), 
80(d)e;  explanation  of  secular  variation  of  terrestrial  mag- 
netism (Schuster),  164e;  gravity  explained  by  continuous 
action  of  matter  (Newton,  Faraday,  Thomson),  91m;  the 
most  cherished  tenets  of  the  past  generation  of  men  of 
science  now  abandoned  (Ogg),  203q. 

Newton,  Sir  Isaac,  could  see  only  the  finger  of  God  in  the 
uniform  direction  of  planetary  movement,  lib;  proof  of 
law  of  equal  areas,  37m,  253;  actio  in  distans  a  great  ab- 
surdity, 67b;  actio  in  distans  after  all  accounts  for  grav- 
itation, 67m,  246e,  258;  speculations  on  actio  in  distans 
accounting  for  Newton's  later  intellectual  weakness 
(Haeckel),  67e;  doubts  his  Proposition  LXXI  Bk.  I,  Prin- 
cipia,  246e;  gravity  explained  by  continuous  action  of 
matter,  91m. 


482  INDEX 

Nichols,  Prof.  E.  P.,  pressure  of  sunlight,  25e. 
Nordenskiold,  Baron,  height  of  aurora,  160b. 

0 

Ogg,  Dr.  A.,  most  cherished  tenets  of  last  generation  of  men 

of  'science  now  abandoned,  203q. 

Oldham,  R.  D.,  defection  of  gravitation  in  the  Himalaya,  247e. 
Opposition  and  conjunction,  new  definition  of,  117b. 
Ostwald,  motion  is  matter,  90b. 


Parallelogram  of  forces,  39,  201m. 

Patterson,  Prof.  J.  A.,  "So  impregnable  that  if  any  fact  were 
quoted  against  it,  then  so  much  the  worse  for  the  fact", 
43q. 

Paulsen,  M.,  height  of  auroras,  160m. 

Payn,  Howard,  vastness  of  sidereal  evolution  and  so  little  of 
it  known,  85q. 

Perihelion  of  Earth's  orbit,  movement  and  present  position  of, 
134b. 

Pickering,  Prof.  E.  C.,  Moon  projected  from  Earth,  78(b)m. 

Pickering,  Prof,  W.  A.,  meteorites  from  Earth,  llOe. 

Pierce,  B,,  origin  of  minor  planets,  112b. 

Planck,  Dr.  Max,  motion  is  matter,  90b;  atomic  structure  of 
energy,  270. 

Planetary  bonds,  71,  77e,  78e,  94,  176;  classification  of,  114; 
factors  of,  115,-6;  monthly  variations  of,  117-119. 

Planetary  subdivision,  limits  of,  182. 

Plato,  geocentric  theory,  6e. 

Poincaire,  M.  H.,  Newton's  law  not  correct,  16q;  different 
values  of  Jupiter's  mass,  94e. 

Poundal,  211m. 

Poynting,  Prof.  J.  H.,  absolute  temperature  of  Earth's  sur- 
face, 50m. 

Precession  of  the  equinoxes,  138e. 

Precipitation,  connection  of,  with  sunspots,  variation  of  plan- 
etary bonds,  etc.,  121,-4,-9;  over  the  United  States,  129; 
at  Key  West  for  the  period  1870-1913,  130. 

Preconceptions  discrediting  evidence:  tides,  44-46,  153e;  tem- 
perature of  Mars,  53e;  constitution  of  Saturnian  ring, 
108m;  attraction  of  a  shell,  246 (d);  organic  matter  in  me- 
teorites, llOe;  one  zodiacal  light,  137b;  our  observations 
colored  by  our  prejudices  (Flower),  5m,  (Faraday,  Des 
Cartes),  16q;  bias  of  the  intellect  (Bacon),  150q;  intel- 
lectual peace  at  the  sacrifice  of  moral  courage,  187q;  "So 
impregnable  that  if  any  fact  were  quoted  against  it,  then 
so  much  the  worse  for  the  fact"  (Patterson),  43q;  "Super- 
stitious dependence  on  the  authority  of  great  men" 
(Argyle),  13e;  reluctance  to  surrender  long-cherished 


INDEX  483 

views,  however  wrong,  and  accept  new  views,  203m; 
prestige  opposing  evidence,  257b. 

Prediction  of  astronomical  events  based  on  experience  (Proc- 
tor, Thomson  and  Tait),  95;  of  the  weather,  133. 

Preece,  W.  H.,  the  motions  of  the  Solar  System  and  those  of 
a  molecule  of  water  are  similar,  69q. 

Prejudices,  see  Preconception. 

Pressure  of  sunlight,  25,  67e,  228,  237. 

Preston,  Thomas,  cosmic  chain  of  causation,  195q. 

Problem  of  three  bodies,  27-36,  250b;  never  fully  calculated 
(Hill),  36b;  is  intractable  (Young),  36e. 

Problem  of  two  bodies,  37,  42. 

Proctor,  Prof.  R.  A.,  statement  of  the  law  of  gravitation,  16b; 
gravitation  accounts  for  every  irregularity  of  planetary 
motion,  25b;  proof  of  law  of  equal  areas,  37m;  "Cemeteries 
for  defunct  theories,  the  textbooks",  55q;  enormous  diffi- 
culties in  the  nebular  hypothesis,  65e;  astronomical  events 
based  on  observation,  95e;  on  solidity  of  Saturnian  ring, 
108m;  origin  of  comets,  113e;  diurnal  variation  of  mag- 
netic needle,  161b. 

Ptolemaic  System,  7, 

Ptolemy,  geocentric  theory,  6e,  7. 

Pythagoras,  conceived  the  heliocentric  theory,  6e. 

Q 

Quantum  theory  of  energy,  200m.  ? 

R 

Radiation  from  Sun  possibly  not  equal  in  all  directions 
(Young,  Laing),  108q. 

Radium,  energy  of,  200e. 

Rainfall,  see  Precipitation. 

Ramsay,  Sir  William,  has  transmuted  copper  into  various 
other  elements  (Becqerel),  200e. 

Reade,  T.  M.,  Earth's  nucleus  as  hot  as  ever,  78  (a) m. 

Reimann,  M.,  height  of  aurora,  160b. 

Resistance,  to  passage  of  matter  through  matter,  201 ;  through 
ether,  201b;  accelerates  a  comet's  speed,  41b. 

Results  of  a  grand  round  of  cosmical  evolution,  199. 

Retardations  and  accelerations  by  mutual  planetary  inter- 
actions, 83. 

Retrospect,  202. 

Riddle  of  the  universe,  1. 

Rigidity  and  hardness  due  to  rapidity  of  constituent  motions, 
200m. 

Ring-disruption,  77;  results  of,  80. 

Ring-projection,  as  modified  by  contraction,  63me;  conflict- 
ing theories  of,  65,>-6;  of  planets  from  Sun,  76-8  (c);  of 
Moon  from  Earth,  (Fisher,  Pickering,  Darwin,  Gilvert), 
78  (b);  of  Saturnian  ring,  108e. 


484  INDEX 

Roentgen  rays,  of  smaller  amplitude  than  light  motion,  196e, 

200m. 
Romanes,  George  J.,  law  of  parsimony  constitutes  the  only 

barrier  between  science  and  superstition,  73q. 
Rotation,  by  precipitation,  59;   by  nebular  collisions,  60;   by 

attraction  of  distant  masses,  61;    origin  of,  90;   uniform 

direction  of  axial  rotation,  80  (b),  (d)e;  increase  of  Sun's 

axial  rotation,  80  (e). 
"Runaway"  stars  not  accounted  for  by  gravitation  (Newcomb) 

23. 

Russel,  Prof.  A.  R.,  height  of  the  atmosphere,  146b. 
Russel,  Prof.  F.  A.  R.,  amount  of  lunar  aerial  tide,  48e. 


Sabine,  Sir  Edward,  explanation  of  terrestrial  magnetism, 
163e;  Moon  affects  terrestrial  magnetism,  163e. 

Saturn,  physical  condition  of,  100;  difficult  to  distinguish 
real  from  imaginary  features  on  (Denning),  108q;  dimen- 
sions of  planet  and  ring  (Newcomb),  108m;  temperature 
of,  108b. 

Saturnian  Ring,  consists  of  a  meteoritic  swarm,  108b;  rotation 
period,  108b;  solid,  (Herschel,  Proctor),  108m;  spots  on 
(Mascari),  108m;  dimensions,  ltf8m;  mass  (Bessel,  Hall, 
Maxwell),  108m;  growing  smaller  (Struve,  Winchell),  108e. 
divisions  of  doubtful  (Hall),  108e;  changes  on  (Stuyvaert), 
108e. 

Schmidt,  Dr.,  solar  rotation  period  of  terrestrial  magnetism, 
165e. 

Schopenhauer,  Arthur,  no  absurdity  so  great  that  it  cannot 
be  planted  in  the  human  mind,  98q. 

Schuster,  Prof.  Arthur,  ignorance  under  cover  of  mathematics, 
38e;  "Obvious  facts  which  the  law  of  gravitation  fails  to 
explain",  56q;  no  explanation  of  Earth's  magnetic  state, 
155q;  explanation  of  the  secular  variation  of  terrestrial 
magnetism,  164  (e)e;  definition  of  amateur,  203q;  pressure 
of  sunlight,  25e;  better  to  be  wrong  than  to  be  neither 
right  nor  wrong,  203m. 

Science,  great  recent  advances  in,  203q;  most  cherished 
tenets  of,  abandoned  (Ogg),  203q. 

Seguin,  Marc,  bodies  not  really  self -attractive,  67e. 

Senier,  Prof.  A.,  molecules  may  have  valencies  the  same  as 
atoms,  69q. 

Severn  Bore,  occurs  every  morning  and  evening,  153e. 

Shaw,  Dr.  W.  N.,  aerial  tidal  protuberance  fixed  in  direction 
with  respect  to  the  Sun,  147m. 

Shell,  attraction  of,  see  Gravitation. 

Sherman,  Orray  Taft,  age  of  tide,  45e;  times  of  maximum 
electricity  in  air,  161e. 

Sidereal  System,  similar  to  Solar  System,  85;  what  it  in- 
cludes, 86;  limits  of  30,000  light-years,  89q;  arrangement 


INDEX  485 

of,  87,  90m;  probable  number  of  successive  generations  of, 
88;  other  sidereal  systems,  89;  dark  stars  of,  87e,  139; 
surrounding  the  expanding  island  of  the  visible  is  the 
boundless  sea  of  the  invisible  (Ladd),  89q;  relative  num- 
bers of  stars  of  each  magnitude  (Turner),  89q;  greatest 
linear  extension  of,  128b. 

Siemens,  Werner,  all  bodies  filled  with  electric  currents,  158e. 

Sky-glows  of  1883,  149. 

Soddy,  Frederick,  recent  changes  in  physical  theories,  14e. 

Solar  Apex,  138m. 

Solar  Corona,  nature  of,  142;  rotation  of,  142m;  coronae  of 
other  bodies,  142e;  position  angles  of  streamers,  143;  con- 
nection of  with  Jupiter,  143,  260e. 

Solar  Spheroid,  density  of,  60 (a);  rotation  of,  59,  60,-1;  de- 
velopment of,  73-78. 

Solidification,  began  at  surface  or  center — which?  78(e)m, 
(b). 

Solids  float  on  their  liquids,  78  (a)  e. 

Sonorous  sand  and  ether  atmospheres,  95e. 

Space,  must  contain  something  like  ordinary  matter,  which 
can  store  up  energy  and  exert  enormous  stresses  (Thom- 
son), 91q;  temperature  of  (Langley),  52m. 

Specific  gravity,  of  solids  compared  with  their  liquids,  78  (a)  e* 

Spectrum,  number  of  spectral  lines  of  hydrogen,  70e,  196m; 
spectra  of  comet's  tails,  coronal  streamers,  aurora  borealis, 
and  zodiacal  light  nearly  similar  (Euler,  Struve,  Angstrom, 
Proctor),  109e;  spectrum  of  temporary  stars,  190b;  origin 
of  spectral  lines,  200m. 

Spencer,  Herbert,  five  successive  theories  of  the  Solar  Sys- 
tem, Titlepage;  on  nebular  condensation  and  rotation,  57,- 
8,-9;  nebular  hypothesis  not  amenable  to  mathematical 
treatment,  65b;  Sun's  interior  gaseous,  78  (a) m;  origin  of 
minor  planets,  112;  ultimate  postulate  must  be  unaccount- 
able, 67b. 

Spherical  shell,  or  sphere,  attraction  of,  20,  208,  224,  246e.  . 

Spiller,  Phillip,  planetary  rings  projected  by  tidal  swells, 
65m;  continual  perfecting  of  the  aggregation  of  atoms, 
170q. 

Spitta,  Edmund  J.,  dark  transits  of  Jupiter's  satellites,  104b. 

Stars,  velocity  of,  23;  arrangements  of  the,  87;  number  of, 
successive  generations  of,  88m;  temporary,  190;  double, 
triple  and  multiple,  191;  short  period  variables,  192;  long 
period  variables,  194;  secular  variation  of  periodic  stars, 
193;  we  can  never  see  the  most  distant  (Mouchez),  85,  91; 
relative  number  of  stars  of  each  magnitude  (Turner),  89q. 

Stewart,  Balfour,  connection  of  sunspots,  heights  of  rivers, 
atmospheric  electricity,  etc.,  121b;  123b;  explanation  of 
terrestrial  magnetism,  155q;  diurnal  magnetic  variation, 
165b;  general  formation  of  sunspots  over  entire  solar  sur- 
face, 170e,-lb;  ascending  atmospheric  electric  currents  at 
Equator,  267. 


486  INDEX 

Stokes,  Prof.,  origin  of  comet's  tails,  109e. 

Stone,  Ormond,  Moon's  motion  not  explained  by  gravitation, 
27q. 

Stoney,  origin  of  spectral  lines,  206m. 

Storm-frequency  and  latitude,  130e. 

Struve,  Otto,  the  Saturnian  ring  getting  smaller,  108e. 

Stuyvaert,  M.,  changes  in  Saturn's  ring,  108e. 

Sun,  gravitational  theory  of  amount  and  distribution  of  solar 
heat  contradicted  by  geology  and  actual  observation,  24, 
50,-l,-2,-3;  temperature,  50;  "The  difficulty  is  not  in  meas- 
uring the  heat  but  in  telling  what  temperature  corresponds 
to  it"  (Langley),  99b;  fraction  of  solar  heat  intercepted  by 
Earth,  50b;  no  variation  of  solar  heat  at  various  distances 
from  the  Sun,  51;  orbital  motion,  lOe;  orbital  period,  138m, 
139b,  141e;  solar  apex,  138m;  increase  of  axial  rotation, 
80  (e);  relative  density  of  Earth-Sun  and  EarthsJupiter 
bonds,  126e;  rotation  period,  172e. 

Sunlight,  pressure  of,  25,  67e,  228,  237. 

Sunspots,  periods  of,  135e,-6,-7,-8 ;  connection  of  with  bond- 
substance  120;  do,  with  weather,  120-125,  135;  do,  with 
Jupiter,  135,-6,  140,  264;  do.  with  the  zodiacal  light,  137, 
264;  do.  with  coronal  streamers,  137e;  dq.  with  sidereal 
connexions,  140;  formation  of,  136b,  169e;  anomolous  per- 
iods of,  138;  cosmological  significance  of,  170;  prevalence 
of,  over  entire  solar  surface,  171b;  equatorial  movement  of, 
171m;  greater  angular  velocity  of,  at  solar  equator,  172; 
comparative  development  on  Earth  and  Sun,  173. 

Surface  cooling  and  solidification,  74,  261b. 

Swann,  Dr.  W.  F.,  no  explanation  of  terrestrial  magnetism, 
155q. 

Swift,  Prof.  Lewis,  unexplained  wonders  of  comets,  108q. 

Sylvester,  Joshua,  significance  of  the  stars,  85q. 


Tait,  Prof.  P.  G.,  force  has  no  objective  reality,  67q,  67b,  ac- 
tio  in  distans  most  obscure  problem  in  physics,  67b;  "Un- 
til we  know  what  matter  is,  it  will  be  premature  to  specu- 
late as  to  the  ultimate  nature  of  force",  67m;  heat  passing 
through  space  not  necessarily  heat,  99b;  union  of  lunar 
and  solar  tidal  waves,  152m;  objection  to  Larmor's  orbital 
motion  theory  of  electrons,  200m. 

Taylor,  Wm.  B.,  gravitation  really  an  actio  in  distans,  instan- 
taneously omnipresent,  infinitum,  and  law  of  gravitation 
"remains  the  largest,  clearest,  surest,  yet  attained  by 
man",  67m. 

Temperature  of  Sun,  Moon,  and  planets,  see  under  name  of 
each. 

Temporary  stars,  190. 

Terrestrial  Electricity  and  Magnetism,  155-165;  thirty  theor- 
ies of  (Chauveau),  155q;  no  satisfactory  theory  of  (Bauer, 
Schuster,  Swann),  155q;  relation  of  magnetic  poles  to 


INDEX  487 

ecliptic  plane,  157;  ascending  currents  at  Equator,  157e, 
267;  the  Earth  a  magnet,  158;  explanation  of  north-point- 
ing magnetic  needle,  158;  direction  of  the  lines  of  no 
declinition,  159;  height  of  aurorae,  160;  diurnal  magnetic 
variation,  161;  lunar  effect  on,  161e;  annual  magnetic 
variation,  160;  irregular  magnetic  variations,  163;  secular 
magnetic  variation,  164;  explanation  of  observations  at 
London  and  Paris,  164  (b);  southeastern  direction  of  mag- 
netic lines,  164  (c);  explanation  of  observations  at  Bos- 
ton, 164  (d)e,  (f ) ;  explanation  of  secular  variation,  164  (e); 
period  of  secular  variation,  164  (c)e,  (f ) ;  simultaneity 
of  magnetic  disturbances  over  the  Earth's  surface, 
165m;  solar  period  of  magnetic  variation,  165e;  relation 
of  earth-currents  and  magnetic  elements,  165m;  intensity 
of  disturbances  varies,  with  magnetic  latitude  (Wein- 
stein,  Wild),  165e;  Faraday's  lines  of  force,  158b;  relation 
to  sun-spots  and  weather  (Veeder),  165e;  magnetic  storms 
simultaneous  over  all  the  planets  (Proctor),  163e;  easier 
for  one  earth-current  to  follow  path  of  a  preceding  one, 
164(0)  b. 

Tesla,  Nicola,  "unsound"  views  leading  to  sound  results,  27q. 

Thales,  geocentric  theory,  6e. 

Thomson,  Sir  William,  Sun  can  attract  Jupiter  without  inter- 
vening medium  if  so  ordered,  37q;  rotation  by  nebular  col- 
lisions, 60(b)m;  Lane's  law  a  delusion,  and  Laplace's 
theory  a  statement  of  fact,  64m;  gravitation  a  fundamental 
fact,  67m;  tides  on  an  Earth  of  Steel,  78(c)e;  density  of 
the  ether,  200e;  260,-6. 

Thomson  and  Tait,  prediction  of  astronomical  events  based 
on  observation,  95e;  proof  of  central  attraction  of  spheres 
by  that  of  pairs  of  opposite  particles,  246b. 

Thomson,  Sir  J.  J.,  space  between  Earth  and  Sun  must  con- 
tain something  that  can  store  and  transmit  energy,  91q; 
what  a  theory  should  do,  166q. 

Thompson,  Prof.  S.  P.,  ascending  electrical  currents  at  Equa- 
tor, 157e,  267;  a  perfect  vacuum  is  a  perfect  insulator, 
160e;  easier  for  one  electric  current  to  follow  the  path  of 
another,  164e. 

Tides,  various  objections  to  tf.dal  theory,  44,-5,-6;  low  water 
directly  under  the  Moon  in  open  ocean  (Darwin),  45b; 
new  theory  by  Sir  Oliver  Lodge,  47;  aerial  tide  due  to 
Sun,  48m,  147;  Moon's  tidal  "earmark",  48b;  chronometri- 
cal  regularity  of  aerial  tide  at  all  elevations  and  in  all 
kinds  of  weather  (Herschel,  Humboldt),  48m;  amplitudes 
of  solar  and  lunar  aerial  tides,  48e;  lunar  aerial  tide  almost 
imperceptible,  48e,  147b;  inland  sea  and  lake  tides  due  to 
Sun,  49,  151,  ;  ground  water  tides,  49e;  "Terrene  tide 
largely  influenced  by  the  Sun"  (Kingsmill),  49e;  greater 
oceanic  tidal  wave  due  to  Sun,  151;  yet  follows  the  Moon, 
152,  255;  merging  of  solar  and  lunar  (tides,  152;  Severn 
Bore,  153e;  discordance  of  present  tidal  theories,  154; 


488  INDEX 

comparison  of  the  old  with  the  new  theory,  50;  retiral  of 
Moon  from  Earth  by  a  tidal  swell  (Darwin),  65m;  height 
of  on  an  Earth  of  steel  (Thomson),  78,(c)e. 

Transmutation  of  the  elements   (Becquerel),  200e. 

Tromholt,  Prof.  Sophus,  diurnal  movement  of  the  auroral 
zone,  161e. 

Truth  cannot  speak  with  two  voices  (Laing),  73q. 

Turner,  Prof.  H.  H.,  law  of  gravitation  most  accurate  known 
to  science,  20b;  is  the  universe  infinite?  89q;  coincidence 
of  maximum  deviation  of  the  vertical  and  severe  earth- 
quakes, 174e. 

Tyndall,  John,  fraction  of  Sun's  heat  received  on  Earth,  50b; 
denial  of  a  truth  better  than  indolent  acceptance  of  it 
on  insufficient  evidence,  56q;  "explains  the  unknown  in 
terms  of  the  more  unknown,"  67q;  a  flowing  river  of  solid 
ice,  78(c)m;  Faraday's  lines  of  force,  158b. 

u 

Ultimate  results  of  a  grand  round  of  cosmical  evolution,  199. 

Universe,  we  can  never  see  the  most  distant  stars  (Mouchez), 
85q;  other  sidereal  systems,  89;  not  infinite  (Turner), 
89q;  "Surrounding  the  expanding  island  of  the  visible  is 
the  boundless  sea  of  the  invisible"  (Ladd),  89q. 

"Unsound"  views  leading  to  sound  results,  (Tesla),  27q. 

Uranus,  should  have  been  larger  than  Jupiter,  lllb;  tem- 
perature of,  108b. 


Vacuum,  is  a  perfect  insulator   (Thompson),  160e. 

Valency,  defined,  69q,  69;  possibly  possessed  by  molecules 
as  by  atoms  (Senier),69e. 

Variable  stars,  190q,  192,-3,^-4. 

Variation  of  latitudes,  see  vertical,  secular  variation  of  peri- 
odic stars,  193. 

Veeder,  M.  A.,  connection  of  solar  faculae,  aurorae,  and  thun- 
derstorms, 165e. 

Velocity,  as  affected  by  motion  around  a  center,  41,  63m, 
201,  271;  of  falling  body  towards  Earth's  center,  22b;  of 
the  stars,  23;  increase  of  absolute  velocity,  41,  63m;  dif- 
ferent orbital  velocities  of  the  planets,  80(d)e;  velocities 
and  radii  of  the  ultimate  subdivisions  of  matter,  196me; 
velocity  of  the  upper  aerial  currents,  149;  velocity  of  light 
as  related  to  molecular  and  planetary  dimensions,  196me; 
hardening  properties  of  great  velocity,  200m. 

Vertical,  displacement  of  the,  174;  severe  earthquakes  coin- 
cident with  maximum  displacement  of,  174e;  greater  dis- 
placement N — S  than  E — W  (Hecker),  174e. 

Very,  Frank  W.,  Earthlight  on  Moon  1/1600  of  moonlight, 
105m;  warm  temperature  of  M?rs,  53m. 

Vortical  theory,  9. 


INDEX  489 

w 

Walker,  W.  J»,  explanation  of  terrestrial  magnetism,   155q. 

Wallace,  Prof.  A.  R.,  opposed  to  Profs.  Lowell  and  Very  as 
to  warm  temperature  of  Mars,  53e. 

Ward,  Robt.,  the  various  estimates  of  the  Sun's  temperature, 
50e. 

Weather,  as  related  to  interplanetary  connexions,  114-135; 
weather  factors  of  the  planetary  connexion  variations, 
115;  monthly  variations  of  these  factors,  116;  monthly  and 
yearly  variations  of  the  planetary  factors  for  the  period 
1840-1923,  117,-8,-9;  connection  of  the  yearly  variations 
with  the  sunspot  periods,  120;  do.  with  the  periods  of  at- 
mospheric precipitation,  121;  do.  with  the  periods  of  at- 
mospheric electricity,  123;  the  wet  and  dry  seasons  of  the 
year,  124;  lagging  of  the  actual  weather,  125;  the  solar 
factor,  126;  the  lunar  factor,  127;  the  sidereal  factor,  128,- 
9;  coincidence  of  the  actually  wet  and  dry  periods  of 
years  with  the  theoretic  wet  and  dry  periods,  129,  130; 
precipitation  at  Key  West  1870-1913,  130b;  relation  of 
storm-frequency  and  latitude,  130e;  incompleteness  of  our 
meteorological  data,  132;  value  of  the  theoretic  weather 
indications,  133;  flood  legend,  134;  connection  of  the  or- 
bital period  of  Jupiter  with  the  theoretic  weather  periods 
and  with  the  sunspot  periods,  135;  connection  of  solar 
faculae,  aurorae  and  thunderstorms,  (Veeder),  165e. 

Weight,  variable  in  day  and  night,  145;  weight  versus  mass 
as  affecting  gravitational  strain,  work,  and  inertia,  26, 
198,  211,  218,  229,  238,  249. 

Weinstein,  Dr.,  coincidence  of  earth-current  changes  with 
changes  of  Earth's  magnetism,  165e. 

Wharton,  Capt.  W.  J.  L.,  on  the  ocean  tide,  150q. 

White,  O.  E.,  the  St.  Peters  at  the  gates  of  science,  203q. 

Wild,  Prof.  H.,  simultaneity  of  terrestrial  magnetic  disturb- 
ances, 165m. 

Winchell,  Prof.  Alexander,  our  home  in  the  universe,  Pref- 
ace, m;  rotation  by  nebular  collisions,  60(b)m;  ratio  of 
central  attraction  on  a  contracted  surface  to  that  on  the 
original  surface,  65e;  Saturn's  ring  getting  smaller,  108m; 
origin  of  minor  planets,  112b;  discordance  of  tidal  the- 
ories, 154;  spectra  of  temporary  stars,  190b;  temporary 
stars  still  visible,  190e. 

Winds,  direction  and  velocity  of  upper  aerial  currents,  149. 

Winlock,  William  C.,  changes  of  latitudes,  174h. 

Woeikof,  Dr.,  criticism  of  Dr.  Croll's  theory  of  climatic 
changes,  167e. 

Wolf,  M.,  nebular  hypothesis  still  answers  best,  65e. 

Wood,  Searles  V.,  on  the  causes  of  geological  climatic 
changes,  167m. 

Wynne,  Prof.  W.  P.,  valency  defined,  69q. 

Wytcherly,  Wm.,  propriety  and  justice  of  criticism,  Preface,  q. 


490  INDEX 


X-radiation,  of  smaller  amplitude  and  harder  and  more  pene- 
trating than  light  motion,  196e;  200m. 


Young,  Prof.  C.  A.,  gravitation  at  the  bottom  of  Harton  Col- 
liery, 21;  gravity  in  an  ellipse,  22e;  gravitational  strain 
of  the  Earth,  26e;  problem  of  three  bodies  intractable, 
36e;  resistance  accelerates  a  comet's  speed,  41b;  Moon's 
tidal  "earmark,"  48b;  Sun's  temperature,  50e;  collapse  of 
a  planet-ring  into  the  spherical  form,  80(d)e;  doubts 
equal  radiation  in  all  directions,  98q;  Saturnian  ring  not 
contracting  upon  planet,  108m;  Neptunian  comets,  113e; 
form  of  the  Earth,  174m;  Eta  Argus,  190q;  doubts  of 
Newton's  Prop.  LXXI,  246e. 


Zenker,  Dr.,  on  the  heat  falling  upon  the  Pole  as  compared 
with  that  upon  the  Equator,  52b. 

Zodiacal  Light,  form  and  extension  of  (Marchaud),  136q; 
description  of  (Dechevrens),  137m;  connection  of,  with 
sunspot  periods,  137b,  264;  misconception  regarding  its 
extension  in  more  than  one  direction  from  the  Sun,  137me. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  fROtt  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 
on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 


LIBRARY  USE 

JUN  8    1959 

•• 

iOwQ 

jUHtt    WiJ 

HOV  221987  7 

7 

LD  21A-50m-4,'59 
(A1724slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


